Alfred Dreyfus, a French Jewish officer, was jailed for spying at the end of the 19th century. His case divided France, and ended with resounding victory for Dreyfus’ supporters. Consequently, Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstalled in the army. Now, a hundred years later, he has made a comeback. His story is about to become a film directed by Roman Polanski. A brilliant British Catholic writer, Piers Paul Read, published a 400 page book called The Dreyfus Affair, written by the superb pen of a master in search of the truth. Some pages in The Prague Cemetery by the ‘intellectual bestseller’ writer Umberto Eco deal with it as well.

Salvation Islands, French Guiana

Why does this story still attract writers and readers? So many people were and are arrested for security offences, quite a few of them unjustly, and suffer long prison sentences or worse. Dreyfus spent four years on Iles de Salut in French Guiana (a picture on the left), not far from Guantanamo, where hundreds of security prisoners languished for a decade (and some still do). Eighty thousand convicts (including the Papillon) went through the Guiana penal colony; so why is Dreyfus still important?

According to PP Read, this case was important because it was used against the Catholic Church. Although ostensibly the Church was not involved, the victory of the Dreyfusards was turned into a profound defeat of the Catholic Church. Perhaps an innocent man was saved, but Christian France was surely lost. The France of Henry James was gone and buried, and a new order came to France, with the media taking the place of the Church in guiding the masses, and moneyed classes taking over the nobility. This defeat of the Church was a milestone in what was described as Kali Yuga by Rene Guenon, the French traditionalist (he was 10 when Dreyfus was arrested).

The question of Dreyfus’s guilt or innocence was a minor point of little relevance, in comparison with the consequences of the case. He was a precursor of the long line of human rights’ martyrs produced by mass media, all these refuseniks, dissidents, wrongly arrested spies and what-not. Some of them were guilty and some were innocent, but each case attacked the sovereignty of the state and its traditional structures, at the same time strengthening the Empire and its Right to Protect, equipped with the latest weaponry. Dreyfus’s case was also supported by England (the US of the time) and helped to entrench pro-British elements in the French establishment.

Catholic view

Read provides the reader with a Catholic perspective. Although he gives a detailed and honest presentation of the Dreyfus affair, it is not central to his narrative in the same way that the fate of Catholicism in France is. He discusses what happened to the Catholic Church and its flock in France in these fateful years and has written a very important book for the modern reader precisely for this reason.

Piers Paul Read’s narrative begins with a broad picture of the persecution of Catholics in 19th century France. What? Catholics were persecuted? We all know that Catholics persecuted Jews; some savants know that the Catholics were hunted in Elizabethan England, but few are aware of the persecution of Catholics in modern times because it has been hidden from the general public’s view by the twin peaks of the Inquisition and the Holocaust. Or at least it had been until the appearance of Read’s book.

Read tells of terrible persecution during the French revolution, when priests were drowned in droves (it was called “patriotic baptism”), and believers stripped naked, tied together and flung off the boats in what they called “republican marriages.” Monks and nuns were executed en masse. Many priests were interred in “floating Bastilles,” these predecessors of the US prison-ships, or transported to West Africa, “the Guantanamo of its time,” where they quickly died of diseases. This persecution abated only under Napoleon.

This is more or less known. Less known is that this persecution did not cease after the Republic was restored; it simply changed its form. Believing Catholics were not beheaded at the Place de la Concorde, but they were barred from any advancement in their careers, which were thwarted by the Protestants and Jews who formed the anti-Catholic bloc, not only due to their hatred of the Church but in order to defend their own perceived interests. Read writes:

In 1879 a government in which six out of ten members were Protestants… passed laws banning Catholic clergy from teaching in either state or private schools, [though] Jewish and Protestant children continued to receive instruction in their faith… The higher strata of the old bourgeoisie were excluded from power for being Catholic or Royalist or both. The gap they left was filled by Protestants and Jews.

A Jewish prefect could with impunity observe Passover, but a prefect who was openly zealous in observance of Easter might find himself under violent attack. “Taking Easter communion under the Third Republic was an affirmative, even a courageous act; government employees who did so were unlikely to be promoted.”

This is the historical background of Dreyfus Affair according to Read: Catholics were denied positions of influence in French society by Protestants and Jews. Catholics were identified as Royalists, while anti-Catholics were Republicans. “Each side had its bogeymen. For the anti-Dreyfusards, it was the Syndicate, the secretive network of world Jewry, for the Dreyfusards it was the Catholic Church, in particular the Jesuits”. Thus the struggle around Dreyfus was not so much about an individual injustice, but about the fate of France. The case was used to purge the Catholics from their last positions in the Army and to intensify the attack on the Church.

Read ponders upon the reasons of hatred to the Church. His explanation is rather weak. In the eyes of public opinion, the Catholic Church was associated with the ancien regime. People were often against the church as the priests tried to forbid girls to dance and would ask intrusive personal questions during confession. He mentions the anti-Catholic attitude of the Jews, but offers no opinion to what extent it influenced events.

Monique Delcroix, author of Dreyfus-Esterhazy (2010, in French) considers the Freemasons the chief enemies of the Church as well as the chief beneficiaries of the anti-Church campaign. Dreyfus Affair led to takeover of France by Freemasons, she says. PP Read does not dwell much on them, though he mentions that Freemasons organised an anti-Catholic cleansing in the Army. He also mentions that the Pope frequently referred to Freemasons as the enemies of the Church being led by Jews. Indeed the Freemason who indulged in depicting the Church as “a black crow sitting on the head of the Gallic cock and tearing his eyes out” happened to be a Jew…

ORDER IT NOW

For me, it was surprising to learn that by the beginning of Dreyfus Affair, Jews weren’t persecuted; it’s the Catholics who were underdogs while the Jews were already the top dogs in France. The Catholic position only worsened with its conclusion. The Church was out-manoeuvred, and despite the deep religiosity which still existed in the provinces, the voters always elected an anti-religious government. Read notes that if women were entitled to vote (they weren’t) the result could have been different.

Read describes the defeat of the Church in rich detail. After the 1903 elections, an even more radically anti-Catholic government was democratically elected, and it expelled the priests from the schools and the nuns from hospitals. Nuns worked for free; others had to be paid, but hatred of the Church was stronger than greed. Churches were robbed, monasteries besieged, and repossessed. It is a sad story, which should be learned in order to understand the 20th century and its oppression of the believers virtually everywhere, from Russia to France and from Turkey to Mexico, the world-wide advent of Kali Yuga.

Geopolitics of the Affair

Read, a Catholic, is a good source for understanding the geopolitical aspect of the Dreyfus Affair. He notes that England, the foremost Protestant power, was traditionally anti-Catholic, and so it supported the French Jews who certainly were hostile to the Church. England was as powerful and influential in those days as the US today. Britain then, as the US today, was promoting Kali Yuga for the world.

England made a lot of mileage from the Dreyfus Affair; just like the US now, the British mobilised “the international community” against disobeying France. Anti-Dreyfusards were anti-British, pro-Dreyfusards were for Britain, so it made sense. Interestingly, English Catholics and even non-Catholic Anglo-Irish like GB Shaw were not carried away by pro-Dreyfus propaganda. So, the Anglo-Jewish alliance (which transformed into Jewish-American Entente of our days) began many decades (if not centuries) before the Balfour declaration.

A precursor of Dreyfus affair was the Damascus Affair of 1840, where some Jews were accused of killing a Catholic priest for his blood. In order to save them, prominent and powerful French Jews colluded with England (and English Jews) and undermined France’s positions in Syria. France was humiliated; the pro-French Muhammad Ali was forced to leave Syria and Palestine; and the country reverted to the Ottoman rule.

Many Frenchmen were shocked to realize that French Jews preferred the interests of their brethren in Syria to the interests of their own country. We are not so surprised, because the activity of the Jewish lobby in Washington has accustomed us to the fact that many Jews indeed are ready to sacrifice the interests of their own country for the sake of their Middle Eastern brothers and sisters. For the citizens of 19th century France, this came as a painful surprise. “A victory for the Jews was perceived by many French patriots as a defeat for France, a defeat in which French Jews collaborated with France’s enemies.”

This story is told by Read, as well, but he sees this mainly as a British, rather than a Jewish, victory: Britain decided to protect the Jews, while France protected Catholics and Russia defended the Orthodox. Read is not looking for any theological explanation of Jewish-British connection: he thinks this was opportunism according to the principle of “Britain has no friends, Britain has interests.” British gunboats rather than Jewish pleas chased Muhammad Ali out of Syria and Palestine, as the ruined walls of Acre attest even today.

Regrettably, Read’s narrative omits the most colourful figure of the Damascus Affair, that of Sir Richard Burton, the great British orientalist, translator of the 1001 Nights and Kama Sutra, the British consul in Damascus in 1870s, who was convinced of the truthfulness of the accusations and produced a book on this subject. Still unpublished, his manuscript is tantalizingly kept under lock and key in the coffers of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

The Dreyfus Affair is an interesting and well-told story, full of colorful personalities which allows the reader to trace the origins of the defeat of the Catholic Church in France, a defeat which is especially relevant to the US Catholics.

The Jewish Angle

For me, the Dreyfus case was an integral part of the Zionist education I received. His “unjust trial” supposedly moved Theodor Herzl to Zionism. In the words of a Jewish historian: “In the ordinary course of [Herzl’s] duties as a correspondent he witnessed the degradation of Captain Alfred Dreyfus of the French General Staff, who had been sentenced on a trumped-up charge of high treason and exiled to a living death on Devil’s Island solely because he was a Jew.” So Dreyfus begot Herzl, and Herzl begot the State of Israel.

I was taught (and perhaps you were, too) that if a Jew was arrested, he’s got to be innocent, and that the real criminals were the anti-Semites. It was good to discover through the medium of Read’s book that Dreyfus was not accused and sentenced just because he was a Jew. There were perfectly good and valid reasons, as valid as in any other security-related case. Read is more than objective, he almost bends over backward to accommodate the Jewish side. Though Read explains the reasons of the judges, he also states (and perhaps overstates) the arguments of the Dreyfus defence team.

It is not that Captain Dreyfus was arrested and sentenced on some flimsy grounds. At this point we should recall the lurid details of the affair. In 1894, the French counter-intelligence had planted a cleaning lady at the apartments of the German military attaché in Paris (the Germans were the greatest enemies of the French anticipating the Great War), and she duly brought home whatever she found in the waste paper basket. PP Read’s writing is full of rich and entertaining details which make this story highly readable. He tells us all about the mustache of the military attaché and about his (bisexual) love affairs and gives the story of the “cleaning lady,” who was quite an accomplished woman and whose greatest accomplishment was that she succeeded in passing for an idiot.

ORDER IT NOW

At one point, she brought in a torn piece of paper, which contained a list [“bordereau” in French, as it became known] of military secrets which somebody offered to sell to the attaché. After concluding that the letter could only have been written by a very small group of officers probably connected to the General Staff, the French secret service ran a graphology analysis and concluded that the only person with matching handwriting was an Alfred Dreyfus, a wealthy, well-educated, rather arrogant artillery captain of Alsatian Jewish origin who was on temporary duty on the General Staff. The graphologist came to this conclusion without knowing whose handwriting sample he was asked to examine or whether that person was Jewish.

Among the experts who checked the handwriting was Alphonse Bertillon, the father of modern criminalistics. He confirmed that Dreyfus was the most probable culprit. Albert Lindemann (in his concise The Jew Accused, with just 70 pages relating to Dreyfus) remarks that “[Dreyfus] was one of a small number who had access to [that] kind of information,” and “of that small number, he was the only one whose handwriting resembled that on the [letter]. In fact, to an untrained eye, the resemblance between [Dreyfus] handwriting and that of the [letter] is striking.”

That would be enough to convict a man even today, but there was other supportive evidence as well. French counter-intelligence turned around an Italian diplomat, and he offered some support for Dreyfus’s guilt. There was also a letter to the German military attaché referring to “this rascal D,” and it was considered to point to Dreyfus.

At the trial, a counter-intelligence officer said that they had evidence they couldn’t disclose, namely, the words of a French mole in a foreign embassy implicating Dreyfus. The defence went into uproar, and demanded full disclosure. They never got it: the officer, Colonel Joseph Henry, said the mole’s name (the Italian Count the French had turned) was too sensitive to disclose. PP Read thinks that this precluded a fair trial. However, this is a common feature of security-connected trials in Israel, where the defence – as a rule – is not allowed to view classified evidence. Ditto in terrorist trials in the US, as we learned from the Guantanamo Papers released by Wikileaks: the accused had no idea what they were being accused of.

Nowadays, the accused must consider himself lucky to be tried at all: there are people in Israel, in the US and elsewhere, who spend years in prison on suspicion of security offences but with no evidence admissible in court. In the world of spies and counter-spies, real hard evidence rarely comes up; they have to act upon their suspicions. If they have to go to court, they are as likely as not to falsify evidence and lie.

Alas, it is not unusual to be wrongly suspected or accused of a “security offence.” In Israel, thousands in prisons are only suspects who never have been charged with an offence. What is unusual is to get out of this intact. Read (and other writers) mention that Dreyfus’s accusers forged documents and lied in order to improve their case. Here again, it would make sense to add that it is not unusual for police to invent details, plant evidence, and lie in order to make their case stick. The accusers of Dreyfus were neither better nor worse than our contemporary policemen and security officers. Dreyfus’s defenders also lied and falsified as much as they could, says Lindemann.

We do not know for sure whether some papers were complete forgeries. Colonel Henry was accused of that, arrested, and promptly cut his throat in jail. Mysteriously, the razor he used neatly folded itself after he had slashed his throat with it. To this day no one knows who visited him an hour before his alleged suicide, for the record of the visitor was removed. His alleged admission of the crime was never signed. In his last note, Henry claimed that he had copied, but not forged the letters – as was common before the advent of Xerox photocopiers. While copying he added some details he knew or thought he knew from another source, as copyists of bygone days regularly used to do. Monique Delcroix wrote that “the episode of Colonel Henry is one of the most mysterious in this case. I have not managed to figure it out.”

If Dreyfus didn’t write the incriminating letter, then who did? It has been claimed that the letter was written by another officer, Charles-Ferdinand Esterhazy. He denied the charge and claimed that he had been offered an enormous bribe of 600, 000 francs to take the fall for Dreyfus. Esterhazy, who was tried and found innocent, said that he had communicated with the Germans on the orders of his commanders in order to mislead them. Read notes that Esterhazy, who apparently did communicate with the Germans, never betrayed any real information and never thought that Dreyfus had been sentenced for his, Esterhazy’s, misdeeds. This Esterhazy was a make-believe spy who simply supplied the Germans with open source coverage of the French newspapers and magazines; “chickenfeed”, in spies’ parlance. So Read implies, possibly there was no crime to start with – provided the bordereau was penned by Esterhazy.

This is not perfectly clear: perhaps Esterhazy was not the most efficient German spy, but he certainly was very close to the Jews. He seconded a duel of honour between a Jewish officer and an anti-Semite, on the side of the Jew. He corresponded with Rothschild, and enjoyed his patronage. He wrote to the tycoon that he was ostracized by fellow officers because of him siding with the Jews. Naturally it was rumoured that he was bribed to play a fall guy for Dreyfus. Read, while mentioning all these details, thinks there is nothing in it, and that Esterhazy’s letters to Rothschild were inspired by his opportunism. Monique Delcroix is not so sure about irrelevance of Esterhazy’s contacts with the Jewish community.

Was there a case against Dreyfus? Well, yes. Was he guilty? We do not know and probably never will. He was saved from punishment, but so was OJ Simpson.

Can we be certain that he was innocent? PP Read thinks so. If Read had kept an open mind on this question, he would have written a more interesting book. In the end, there was so much outside interference in the case, it is difficult to decide. “At his retrial, the Prime Minister pressured the military prosecutor and even judges to arrive at not-guilty verdict” (Lindemann). The Defence minister also pushed for Dreyfus. Both sides, Dreyfusards and anti-Dreyfusards believed that “an end justifies the means”. Recently Prof Faurisson and his friends, admittedly no friends of Jews, tried to investigate and re-try Dreyfus, but their conclusion was none other than “doubtful.”

ORDER IT NOW

GK Chesterton was a strong believer in the innocence of Dreyfus, but he was swayed, not so much by the facts of the case, but by the unanimous pro-Dreyfus position of the British press. While “there may have been a fog of injustice in the French courts; I know that there was a fog of injustice in the English newspapers,” he wrote and added that he was unable to reach a final “verdict on the individual,” which he came “largely to attribute” to the “acrid and irrational unanimity of the English Press.” He was also astonished by the sincerity of all sides: Dreyfus was sincerely certain of his innocence and his accusers were equally certain of his guilt.

Dreyfus’s supporters (including, most of all, his brother) spent millions of francs (as many dollars today) to set him free. There were a few retrials, but every retrial confirmed the conviction. Still, Dreyfus supporters did not relent, and eventually he was paroled. In order to receive parole he admitted his guilt. Read thinks this admission was a forced and a false one, but it brought a storm of feelings among the parties, and some Dreyfusards became enemies of Alfred Dreyfus because of that.

Jewish Victimhood

Prominent historians do not think that Dreyfus was sentenced because he was a Jew,

not even Jewish historians: Barbara Tuchman, for one, wrote: “The trial of Alfred Dreyfus… was not a deliberate plot to frame an innocent man. It was an outcome of reasonable suspicion….” Albert Lindemann, the most prominent expert on anti-Semitism alive, concluded: “no evidence has ever emerged of an anti-Semitic plot against Dreyfus by intelligence officers, especially not of a premeditated effort to convict someone they knew from the beginning to be innocent.”

PP Read is quite nuanced when answering the question whether Dreyfus was accused because he was a Jew. He says: though he was not accused because he was a Jew, it is not impossible that if he were not a Jew, his accusers would have been more cautious before deciding his fate. Actually Read’s own writing offers a different explanation: Dreyfus was not accused because he was a Jew; he was accused because he was a schmuck. His stiff manners, his aloofness, his arrogant, non-comradely attitude to fellow-officers, as well as his boasting about his money and connections made his accusers less cautious while deciding his fate. His Jewishness was much less important than his arrogance, for other Jews had great military careers in the French Republic, including positions on the General Staff, and they were not customarily accused of spying.

But philosemites walk where Jews fear to tread. The strongest proponent of the Jewish victimhood theory is Umberto Eco. The Italian writer’s book is as biased as a comic strip and about as subtle as his native Commedia dell’Arte. In his story there are villains and there are victims, and all nuances are ignored.

For Eco, Alfred Dreyfus was framed by villainous Jew-haters who manufactured the letter with the deliberate intention of framing an innocent Jew. They do this simply because they hate Jews, even though they knew no Jews personally. These sentiments worthy of Abe Foxman are interspersed with recipes of old French and Italian dishes, along with some loosely connected bits and pieces of pseudo-historical writing. Jews are conspicuously absent from this book, for Jews, in Eco’s view, are just perpetual victims and objects of hostile fantasy by the Gentiles.

Eco is a flaming conspiracy theorist. There is a Mr. Nasty Guy who hates Jews and who wants to make some money out of his hatred. He does not know any Jews; he never met a Jew, but he was told by his grandparents that one should hate Jews. He incidentally hates everybody: women, the Church, Freemasons, revolutionaries, and conservatives. He marches with Garibaldi in Italy, goes to France under Napoleon III, survives the Commune of Paris and makes a living by forging documents and helping the secret services.

He resurrects the ultimate Conspiracy Theory (familiar to the reader from Eco’s older and better book Foucault’s Pendulum). Bad guys meet in a remote place and decide how they should destroy the world in order to control it. This wandering meta-script has been used by Mr. Nasty Guy for years; the only thing that changes are the individual bad guys, whose identities change according to demand. Sometimes it’s the cardinals; sometimes it’s the Freemasons, and sometimes it’s the Jews. Thus he creates the Protocols, as well.

Eco’s narrative of the Dreyfus Affair is brilliantly simple. A French Intelligence officer Esterhazy meets Mr. Nasty and commissions him to forge a document ostensibly written by a Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus to the German military attaché containing a list of military secrets to be supplied, all that because of his sheer boyish hatred of Jews. (Eco is not aware of Esterhazy’s friendship with Jews). Antisemites are primed to go into action the moment Dreyfus is charged. Nasty is given a sample of Dreyfus’s handwriting and off he goes. And then a comedy of errors ensues: the handwriting sample was really Esterhazy’s. Dreyfus goes off to the Devil’s Island, and the anti-Semites rejoice, until his defenders discover that the handwriting is Esterhazy’s. The anti-Semites then commission more forgeries from Mr. Nasty, but it is too late.

Eco’s book is so improbable that it could be seen as a parody of the Jewish view of history. Despite a wealth of historical trivia, the book lacks substance. His history is made of cardboard; it is a semi-processed mixture of culinary recipes mixed in with a lot of dirt. In Eco’s book, if a Jew is accused, you can bet your bottom dollar that he was framed by vile anti-Semites. I wonder whether the good semiotics doctor was duly rewarded by Messrs. Milken, Rich, Madoff, Pollard et al, for he richly deserves their gratitude.

Jews and anti-Semites

Perhaps the Dreyfus Affair was about the Church; but this is not to say that the Dreyfus affair had no pro- and contra-Jewish partisans. Whenever a Jew is convicted of a crime, people who have a negative view of the Jewish practices do pay attention to the Jewishness of the criminal – just as people who have a positive view are prone to exult in every achievement of a Jew. And Jews certainly were active players in the politics of the time.

Lindemann offers a useful historical background note. The nineteenth century witnessed the rise of Jews, i.e. rapid rise of Jewish influence, wealth, importance, and numbers. Somebody paid for this rise: as in our own day, in the 1850s and ‘60s, free-market policies had a longish run in Europe, and like nowadays, they brought about a stock market collapse, bank bankruptcy, many financial scandals (Enron and Madoff had their predecessors) and eventually a Great Depression, which lasted from the 1870s to the 1890s. Unemployment became a problem then, as now. Liberalism was discredited: it took over a century until people forgot it and ushered in Thatcherism and Reaganomics.

ORDER IT NOW

Then as now, Jews were connected with liberalism and financial mismanagement: in many great scandals, including the Panama Affair, they played a major role. They also became quite powerful nationally and internationally, though not as much as some fantasies presume. Lindemann is being cautious when he says: “there are few more prickly issues than that of international power of Jews in modern times, whether one is speaking of the 1860s or the 1980s.”

With rise of liberalism, resistance to Jewish politics began to take organized forms. PP Read draws a portrait of Edouard Drumont, the first modern French anti-Semite: “a widower, shy and self-effacing, a closed personality, very old-fashioned, rather eccentric, introspective, contemplative, scholarly – a kind of secular monk.” Drumont used the Dreyfus affair to spread his message of anti-Semitism, for he believed that France was “occupied by Jews, just like England was enslaved by the Normans under William the Conqueror.” Read could add that Georges Bernanos, a renown French anti-capitalist and anti-fascist Catholic writer, admired Drumont.

Anti-Semitism was (and is) an anti-bourgeois radical movement, and it was not approved of by the upper classes or by senior clergymen. In the words of Le Figaro’s conservative editor, “anti-Semitism is the most dangerous form of socialism; it is a campaign against moneyed classes”. The political achievements of the anti-Semites were rather meager. Still, the ruling bourgeoisie felt threatened by them.

Two camps were formed: anti-Dreyfusards, some of them were radical anti-Semites, while others were Catholics and conservatives, and Dreyfusards, some of whom were Jews, and others, usually anti-clerical republicans. Both could be unpleasant: a typical Dreyfusard was Georges Clemenceau, involved in Panama scandal, identified with British interests; he violently broke strikes and ordered demonstrators to be shot at. Awful, but not worse than an anti-Dreyfusard Charles Maurras who rejected Christ and called for Nietzschean ruthlessness in the Darwinian struggle.

Paradoxically, the Marxists refused to condemn anti-Semitism and were worried that “rehabilitation of one of their class [will cause] rehabilitation of all the Jews among the Panama men. They will wash away all the filth of Israel in this fountain”. This was published in the socialist newspaper La PetiteRépublique, and signed by all leading socialists including Jaures.Naturally, vast majority of French people remained oblivious and indifferent to the issue.

Read describes a few interesting personalities on both sides of the divide. Bernard Lazare was a friend of Drumont, (they referred to each other favourably), a Jew very critical of Jews. At a certain point, he reversed his position and began to fight anti-Semitism. He was one of the first Dreyfusards who said that Dreyfus was imprisoned because he was a Jew. His conversion was so complete and sudden that many people who knew him thought he was bought by the Dreyfus family to serve as a liaison with intellectuals.

Emile Zola, the writer who turned the tide with his J’accuse, is depicted as a quite unpleasant man, quarreling with other authors. Goncourt called him “a false, shifty, hypocritical creature, an Italian, yes, an Italian!” Marcel Proust joined the Dreyfusard cause, and his father was so annoyed with that decision that he did not speak to him for a week.

If anti-Semites hadn’t used the Dreyfus case as a pretext to attack Jews, the Dreyfusards would most probably have never come into existence, since practically everybody, including Bernard Lazare and Theodor Herzl, were convinced that Dreyfus was really guilty. The attacks on Jews woke up their fighting spirit, and eventually they won their great victory. Or, perhaps, this was the victory of the Freemasons? Who used whom? This question of “dog and tail” still remains unanswered.

[…] As for media, the present concentration of almost all mass media in Jewish hands began in France of 19th century, where Jews formed a conspiracy to own and control media and they used it with great success against the Church during the Third Republic, notably in connection with Dreyfus Affair. (I previously wrote about it in a review). […]

"In the early 1890s two Jewish bankers of German origin, Cornelius Herz and Baron Jacques de Reinach, were accused of the wholesale bribery of politicians in connection with the Panama Canal Company; the project was in severe difficulties, and the bribes had been related to the granting of a permit for a lottery to raise extra funds in 1888. The company collapsed anyway, and three quarters of a million French investors lost their investment. .. . .Accused of corruption in late November 1892, de Reinach was targeted by Drumont, as well as by Maurice Barre's newspaper La Cocarde, as epitomizing the link between Jewish subversion, capitalism and the evils of Republican parliamentarianism. De Reinach committed suicide, while Herz fled to exile in England. . . .

"Jews could be cast as immoral capitalists; yet they could also be seen as dangerous advocates of revolution. . . .the association of socialism with Marx -- a German Jewish import -- and the growing prevalence of Jewish activists within the working class movement strengthened fears of an internationale of Jewish revolutionaries bent on subversion. This negative portrait was strengthened when Eastern European Jews - unassimilated and often deeply religious -- arrived from Russia after a wave of pogroms between 1881 and 1884. . . .

"Scheurer-Kestner [Catholic and an ardent French patriot who viewer Germans as Barbaric, but who was convinced of Dreyfus's innocence] was urged on by Joseph Reinach . . .of German stock [and] the eldest son of the fabulously wealthy Frankfurt banker Hermann-Joseph Reinach . . .[was] contacted by Bernard Lazare in August 1896 and quickly became one of Dreyfus's most energetic supporters. But, while Scheurer-Kestner was eulogized, Reinach was slandered. From the moment of Dreyfus's arrest, Drumont reminded his readers of the central role Joseph's father-in-law and uncle, Baron de Reinach, had played in the Panama Canal Scandal. . . .

Reinach was a parliamentary deputy, but association with the scandal had destroyed his chances of ministerial office; he was able to throw himself into the Affair because he no longer needed to make the political calculations necessary to protect his career. His family connection, however, meant that he could not from the movement -- hence his approach to Scheurer-Kestner and determination to make this establishment politician take on the role he could not adopt himself."

Scheurer-Kestner believed he could resolve the conflict quickly through behind-the-scenes bureaucratic means and was eager to do so. Reinach was in the vanguard of those who "championed the Jewish captain not because they had clear proof of his innocence, but because they believed the Jesuits were responsible for his conviction;" they worked to enflame and perpetuate the conflict in order to bring down the Jesuits and Catholicism in France. Through gestures of false friendship, Reinach manipulated Scheurer-Kestner to his anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit agenda, which meant Dreyfus's imprisonment was prolonged.

-- Ruth Harris, "Dreyfus, Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century."

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

I have studied a great deal of French history. The answer is no, the clergy were not royalist. After tens of thousands of them were slaughtered during the revolution, they were scrupulous about staying out of politics.

They were however, pro worker, pro children and anti exploitive capitalism, financial fraud etc.
FYI the French revolutionaries set up Cayenne, Devils island and the other penal islands as prisons for priests.

It was a death penalty offense to be a catholic priest, monk, or nun during the revolution

The younger priests were able to hide out in the forests, live off the land and continue to take care of the parishes

But the nuns and older priests were captured and guillotined in public. It didn't look well to see white haired old men and nun nurses from the local hospitals guillotined so they were shipped off to die on Devils island.

Before Devils Island the revolutionaries would put the clergy on old barges, chain them together, knock holes in the barges, tow them out to the river or harbor and let them drown.

After Nantes harbor and numerous rivers became blocked by these barges and bodies the revolutionaries came up with the idea of Devils island

Want a source? Learn to read French and get a card at a good university library

“In the early 1890s two Jewish bankers of German origin, Cornelius Herz and Baron Jacques de Reinach, were accused of the wholesale bribery of politicians in connection with the Panama Canal Company; the project was in severe difficulties, and the bribes had been related to the granting of a permit for a lottery to raise extra funds in 1888. The company collapsed anyway, and three quarters of a million French investors lost their investment. .. . .Accused of corruption in late November 1892, de Reinach was targeted by Drumont, as well as by Maurice Barre’s newspaper La Cocarde, as epitomizing the link between Jewish subversion, capitalism and the evils of Republican parliamentarianism. De Reinach committed suicide, while Herz fled to exile in England. . . .

“Jews could be cast as immoral capitalists; yet they could also be seen as dangerous advocates of revolution. . . .the association of socialism with Marx — a German Jewish import — and the growing prevalence of Jewish activists within the working class movement strengthened fears of an internationale of Jewish revolutionaries bent on subversion. This negative portrait was strengthened when Eastern European Jews – unassimilated and often deeply religious — arrived from Russia after a wave of pogroms between 1881 and 1884. . . .

“Scheurer-Kestner [Catholic and an ardent French patriot who viewer Germans as Barbaric, but who was convinced of Dreyfus's innocence] was urged on by Joseph Reinach . . .of German stock [and] the eldest son of the fabulously wealthy Frankfurt banker Hermann-Joseph Reinach . . .[was] contacted by Bernard Lazare in August 1896 and quickly became one of Dreyfus’s most energetic supporters. But, while Scheurer-Kestner was eulogized, Reinach was slandered. From the moment of Dreyfus’s arrest, Drumont reminded his readers of the central role Joseph’s father-in-law and uncle, Baron de Reinach, had played in the Panama Canal Scandal. . . .

Reinach was a parliamentary deputy, but association with the scandal had destroyed his chances of ministerial office; he was able to throw himself into the Affair because he no longer needed to make the political calculations necessary to protect his career. His family connection, however, meant that he could not from the movement — hence his approach to Scheurer-Kestner and determination to make this establishment politician take on the role he could not adopt himself.”

Scheurer-Kestner believed he could resolve the conflict quickly through behind-the-scenes bureaucratic means and was eager to do so. Reinach was in the vanguard of those who “championed the Jewish captain not because they had clear proof of his innocence, but because they believed the Jesuits were responsible for his conviction;” they worked to enflame and perpetuate the conflict in order to bring down the Jesuits and Catholicism in France. Through gestures of false friendship, Reinach manipulated Scheurer-Kestner to his anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit agenda, which meant Dreyfus’s imprisonment was prolonged.

– Ruth Harris, “Dreyfus, Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century.”

Most spies do it for a different proportion of:1) money2) trills (self importance) and3) ideology.

Personally, I would estimate the confidence of Dreyfus' guilt instead of deciding yes/no simply because the factual elements are in a complex mix. Again, my personal feeling is at about 70% confidence of guilty.

From the submitted descriptions, Dreyfus was quite arrogant and self-important, why would he not take revenge on the others who rejected him by spying - I am smarter than all of you!

Besides, the issue of Dreyfus' guilt is secondary to the value of this case as an early prototype of the modern power struggles, including the Trump's. In other words, it was much more interesting how and why the public intellectuals took sides in this case and what they wrote as their arguments.

Most spies do it for a different proportion of:
1) money
2) trills (self importance) and
3) ideology.

Personally, I would estimate the confidence of Dreyfus’ guilt instead of deciding yes/no simply because the factual elements are in a complex mix. Again, my personal feeling is at about 70% confidence of guilty.

From the submitted descriptions, Dreyfus was quite arrogant and self-important, why would he not take revenge on the others who rejected him by spying – I am smarter than all of you!

Besides, the issue of Dreyfus’ guilt is secondary to the value of this case as an early prototype of the modern power struggles, including the Trump’s. In other words, it was much more interesting how and why the public intellectuals took sides in this case and what they wrote as their arguments.

the issue of Dreyfus’ guilt is secondary to the value of this case as an early prototype of the modern power struggles, including the Trump’s. In other words, it was much more interesting how and why the public intellectuals took sides in this case and what they wrote as their arguments.

It was about the bankers and Jewish ideologues who fiercely hated Catholic-Christian prominence in France and took advantage of a situation -- even exacerbated the conflict far beyond its actual harms -- to tear down those age-old cultural institutions.

b. Quibble with Kiza's assessment that Dreyfuss was "an early prototype of the modern power struggle . . ."I've been reading E Michael Jones's The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, particularly his overview of Jews in Poland, over a span of about 700 years.

Most interesting about Jones's work is the extent of its reliance on "the first modern Jewish historian," Heinrich Graetz: this reliance insulates Jones against the charge of antisemitism.Graetz, a German Jew who wrote in German, was deeply disdainful of Polish Jewish deep involvement in Kabalah, with attendant study and practice of deceptive and hair-splitting forms of argument. Rabbi Henry Abramson validates this interpretation of Graetz's history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqeRpiVQ-9Y

As the quoted passages, above, from Ruth Harris's biography of the Dreyfuss affair notes,

“Jews could be . . . be seen as dangerous advocates of revolution. . . .the association of socialism with Marx . . . and the growing prevalence of Jewish activists within the working class movement strengthened fears of an internationale of Jewish revolutionaries bent on subversion. This negative portrait was strengthened when Eastern European Jews – unassimilated and often deeply religious — arrived from Russia after a wave of pogroms between 1881 and 1884."

Through a series of 18th and 19th century partitions, by 1881-1884 much of Poland had become Russia; thus the "unassimilated Eastern European Jews" brought with them to France (as also to Germany in the same period) many of the negative traits that Graetz himself ascribed to Polish Jews, and that had become deeply ingrained over centuries of practice.

Thus, the Dreyfuss case was not so much "an early prototype of the modern power struggles," but rather the enactment of a well-rehearsed pattern.

To observe in real-time how correct Kiza is in stating that that "the Trump" power struggles mirror those power struggles, tune into the Senate confirmation hearings for the ambassador to Israel; observe how American political leaders put Israel's interests unconditionally above those of the American people, just as Jones details how Polish landowners, monarchs and nobility willing surrendered their own interests to those of Polish Jewish arendators.Joseph Lieberman's testimony is a case in point: it just happened, by extraordinary coincidence! , Lieberman avers, that when Lieberman left the Senate he became a partner in the law firm of David Friedman, "a fine and upstanding, highly professional bankruptcy lawyer."

--I've changed my mind/mantra: USA is not so much "Weimar;" USA today is 19th century Jewish Poland -- Weimar was much the same.

That sounds like a pretty judicious assessment to me who isn't knowledgeable about the specifics.. Occasionally one should risk a compliment like that on UR, say when Valentine's Day has disappointed if one needs an excuse... :-)

Montefiore stage-managed the entire campaign to free the Jews accused of killing the Catholic priest from his home in England. It was he who arranged the trips of Jews to Damascus meant to put pressure on the government there on behalf of the accused. It was he who directed the huge media campaign in the European press on behalf of these men. He was also the one who led the campaign to put extreme pressure on the English government to support these men.

Montefiore efforts seem to have ended up being successful since the accused were never tried. This must put the Vatican very much on edge since it meant that the killing of a priest could essentially go unpunished if enough pressure could be applied.

The Damascus Affair had a profound effect in England because Montefiore was able to use it almost singlehandedly bring to a dead stop to the so-called Jewish Englightment reform movement (the “Haskalah”) in England and much of the rest of Europe as well. It is still the primary reason that Reform Judaism never achieved the widespread prominence in the UK that it eventually achieved in the United States. Even today most temple attending Jews in England are Orthodox not Reform as is the case in the US, specifically because of Montefiore’s efforts.

Most spies do it for a different proportion of:1) money2) trills (self importance) and3) ideology.

Personally, I would estimate the confidence of Dreyfus' guilt instead of deciding yes/no simply because the factual elements are in a complex mix. Again, my personal feeling is at about 70% confidence of guilty.

From the submitted descriptions, Dreyfus was quite arrogant and self-important, why would he not take revenge on the others who rejected him by spying - I am smarter than all of you!

Besides, the issue of Dreyfus' guilt is secondary to the value of this case as an early prototype of the modern power struggles, including the Trump's. In other words, it was much more interesting how and why the public intellectuals took sides in this case and what they wrote as their arguments.

a. Mostly AGREE with Kiza –

the issue of Dreyfus’ guilt is secondary to the value of this case as an early prototype of the modern power struggles, including the Trump’s. In other words, it was much more interesting how and why the public intellectuals took sides in this case and what they wrote as their arguments.

It was about the bankers and Jewish ideologues who fiercely hated Catholic-Christian prominence in France and took advantage of a situation — even exacerbated the conflict far beyond its actual harms — to tear down those age-old cultural institutions.

b. Quibble with Kiza’s assessment that Dreyfuss was “an early prototype of the modern power struggle . . .”
I’ve been reading E Michael Jones’s The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, particularly his overview of Jews in Poland, over a span of about 700 years.

Most interesting about Jones’s work is the extent of its reliance on “the first modern Jewish historian,” Heinrich Graetz: this reliance insulates Jones against the charge of antisemitism.
Graetz, a German Jew who wrote in German, was deeply disdainful of Polish Jewish deep involvement in Kabalah, with attendant study and practice of deceptive and hair-splitting forms of argument. Rabbi Henry Abramson validates this interpretation of Graetz’s history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqeRpiVQ-9Y

As the quoted passages, above, from Ruth Harris’s biography of the Dreyfuss affair notes,

“Jews could be . . . be seen as dangerous advocates of revolution. . . .the association of socialism with Marx . . . and the growing prevalence of Jewish activists within the working class movement strengthened fears of an internationale of Jewish revolutionaries bent on subversion. This negative portrait was strengthened when Eastern European Jews – unassimilated and often deeply religious — arrived from Russia after a wave of pogroms between 1881 and 1884.”

Through a series of 18th and 19th century partitions, by 1881-1884 much of Poland had become Russia; thus the “unassimilated Eastern European Jews” brought with them to France (as also to Germany in the same period) many of the negative traits that Graetz himself ascribed to Polish Jews, and that had become deeply ingrained over centuries of practice.

Thus, the Dreyfuss case was not so much “an early prototype of the modern power struggles,” but rather the enactment of a well-rehearsed pattern.

To observe in real-time how correct Kiza is in stating that that “the Trump” power struggles mirror those power struggles, tune into the Senate confirmation hearings for the ambassador to Israel; observe how American political leaders put Israel’s interests unconditionally above those of the American people, just as Jones details how Polish landowners, monarchs and nobility willing surrendered their own interests to those of Polish Jewish arendators.
Joseph Lieberman’s testimony is a case in point: it just happened, by extraordinary coincidence! , Lieberman avers, that when Lieberman left the Senate he became a partner in the law firm of David Friedman, “a fine and upstanding, highly professional bankruptcy lawyer.”

–
I’ve changed my mind/mantra: USA is not so much “Weimar;” USA today is 19th century Jewish Poland — Weimar was much the same.

the Dreyfuss case was ... rather the enactment of a well-rehearsed pattern.

But to explain what I meant by: "...an early prototype of the modern power struggles..." , by modern I meant post-Gutenberg, early mass-media times when intellectualism became available for mass consumption and the institution of public opinion has been created. Otherwise, I have no doubt that the Jewish "revolutionary spirit" has very old, probably ancient roots (pre-Roman times?). 700 years ago most power action would have been in, at and around the royal court, instead of the court of public opinion. Perhaps, the prominent Jews understood the power of the new development better than others and quickly learned how to manipulate and harness this public opinion for their own purposes (i.e. invested their money into it). This is why nowadays main public media in the West are controlled by the Jewish interests, unfortunately those most extreme in their revolutionary spirit.

In other words, in Dreyfus case "the enactment of a well-rehearsed pattern" has been done by new, almost contemporary means.

... observe how American political leaders put Israel’s interests unconditionally above those of the American people, just as Jones details how Polish landowners, monarchs and nobility willing surrendered their own interests to those of Polish Jewish arendators ...

yes, excellent parallel. I will go find Jones' book, thanks for the reference.

Speaking of anti-Catholic bigotry, I was reminded of this which contains some interesting and timely considerations even if slightly off-topic.

Down in South Carolina the Minute Men of South Carolina have sprung into being to save the State and its schools for Protestantism. They have discovered that despite the present percentage restriction of immigration we are “the dumping ground for vast hordes of ignorant and illiterate, and in many cases criminal, peoples from Roman Catholic countries.”

Why, ask the Minute Men, is it impossible to secure adequate laws to prevent these evils and to stop these immigrants from “enjoying the fruits of our ancestors’ sacrifices and labors while we, the rightful inheritors, are being gradually forced out of many of the chances of livelihood because we cannot live and compete with this motley scum?” Their answer, of course, is that a small minority “well-organized and generaled” is “trying to make this nation Roman Catholic.”

If I remember correctly, the Bolshies, among other horrendous crimes, filled barges with clergy and then sunk them too. Later, Stalin used some of the ships given to him by the US to transport slaves to such labor camps as Kolyma.

I may need to get this book...

Stalin's Slave Ships: Kolyma, the Gulag Fleet, and the Role of the West
By Martin J. Bollinger

Every book I have ever read on the subject assumes Dreyfus was innocent, though they admit he was not universally popular even among people who were not anti-Semites and who believed in his innocence.
The case exposed deep fault lines in French society. A famous cartoon by Caran d’Ache showed a bourgeois French family eating a pleasant dinner while the head of the house says not to discuss the Dreyfus case. In the next frame everyone is fighting. The caption says, “They talked about it.”
One prominent anti-Dreyfusard was walking with a friend in a park when they were approached by a startlingly inarticulate gentleman who congratulated him on fighting the good fight against Dreyfus. After the latter went away, the anti-Dreyfusard remarked to his friend, “Why is it that all the idiots are on our side?”

"If anti-Semites hadn’t used the Dreyfus case as a pretext to attack Jews, the Dreyfusards would most probably have never come into existence, since practically everybody, including Bernard Lazare and Theodor Herzl, were convinced that Dreyfus was really guilty."

Do you have a source for Herzl's privately believing he was guilty? I'm very curious about this. From what I recall, Herzl didn't place any importance on his Jewishness until quite late in his life.

Speaking of anti-Catholic bigotry, I was reminded of this which contains some interesting and timely considerations even if slightly off-topic.

Down in South Carolina the Minute Men of South Carolina have sprung into being to save the State and its schools for Protestantism. They have discovered that despite the present percentage restriction of immigration we are "the dumping ground for vast hordes of ignorant and illiterate, and in many cases criminal, peoples from Roman Catholic countries."

Why, ask the Minute Men, is it impossible to secure adequate laws to prevent these evils and to stop these immigrants from "enjoying the fruits of our ancestors' sacrifices and labors while we, the rightful inheritors, are being gradually forced out of many of the chances of livelihood because we cannot live and compete with this motley scum?" Their answer, of course, is that a small minority "well-organized and generaled" is "trying to make this nation Roman Catholic."

I just thought that the immigration issue was interesting in that the same anti-immigration rhetoric was used in 1922 as is used today and today the anti-Muslim demagoguery has replaced the anti-Catholic baloney.

Speaking of anti-Catholic bigotry, I was reminded of this which contains some interesting and timely considerations even if slightly off-topic.

Down in South Carolina the Minute Men of South Carolina have sprung into being to save the State and its schools for Protestantism. They have discovered that despite the present percentage restriction of immigration we are "the dumping ground for vast hordes of ignorant and illiterate, and in many cases criminal, peoples from Roman Catholic countries."

Why, ask the Minute Men, is it impossible to secure adequate laws to prevent these evils and to stop these immigrants from "enjoying the fruits of our ancestors' sacrifices and labors while we, the rightful inheritors, are being gradually forced out of many of the chances of livelihood because we cannot live and compete with this motley scum?" Their answer, of course, is that a small minority "well-organized and generaled" is "trying to make this nation Roman Catholic."

It's not a rhetorical question: I just haven't studied much French history.

I have studied a great deal of French history. The answer is no, the clergy were not royalist. After tens of thousands of them were slaughtered during the revolution, they were scrupulous about staying out of politics.

They were however, pro worker, pro children and anti exploitive capitalism, financial fraud etc.
FYI the French revolutionaries set up Cayenne, Devils island and the other penal islands as prisons for priests.

It was a death penalty offense to be a catholic priest, monk, or nun during the revolution

The younger priests were able to hide out in the forests, live off the land and continue to take care of the parishes

But the nuns and older priests were captured and guillotined in public. It didn’t look well to see white haired old men and nun nurses from the local hospitals guillotined so they were shipped off to die on Devils island.

Before Devils Island the revolutionaries would put the clergy on old barges, chain them together, knock holes in the barges, tow them out to the river or harbor and let them drown.

After Nantes harbor and numerous rivers became blocked by these barges and bodies the revolutionaries came up with the idea of Devils island

Want a source? Learn to read French and get a card at a good university library

Your final 2 sentence paragraph makes me think about the kinds of facts and ideas that rarely get translated into English. They tend to be things that might lead people to understand the world in ways that do not march in lock step with the standard English vision.

Most spies do it for a different proportion of:1) money2) trills (self importance) and3) ideology.

Personally, I would estimate the confidence of Dreyfus' guilt instead of deciding yes/no simply because the factual elements are in a complex mix. Again, my personal feeling is at about 70% confidence of guilty.

From the submitted descriptions, Dreyfus was quite arrogant and self-important, why would he not take revenge on the others who rejected him by spying - I am smarter than all of you!

Besides, the issue of Dreyfus' guilt is secondary to the value of this case as an early prototype of the modern power struggles, including the Trump's. In other words, it was much more interesting how and why the public intellectuals took sides in this case and what they wrote as their arguments.

That sounds like a pretty judicious assessment to me who isn’t knowledgeable about the specifics.. Occasionally one should risk a compliment like that on UR, say when Valentine’s Day has disappointed if one needs an excuse…

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/02/usa.humanrights
Yes they did

“If anti-Semites hadn’t used the Dreyfus case as a pretext to attack Jews, the Dreyfusards would most probably have never come into existence, since practically everybody, including Bernard Lazare and Theodor Herzl, were convinced that Dreyfus was really guilty.”

Do you have a source for Herzl’s privately believing he was guilty? I’m very curious about this. From what I recall, Herzl didn’t place any importance on his Jewishness until quite late in his life.

Many priests were interred in “floating Bastilles,” these predecessors of the US prison-ships ...

I know the British put American POWs on prison-ships during the Revolution but I did not know "the US" ran any such vessels.

If I remember correctly, the Bolshies, among other horrendous crimes, filled barges with clergy and then sunk them too. Later, Stalin used some of the ships given to him by the US to transport slaves to such labor camps as Kolyma.

I may need to get this book…

Stalin’s Slave Ships: Kolyma, the Gulag Fleet, and the Role of the West
By Martin J. Bollinger

How does anti birth control figure in? If they can have the brats to age 6, you can have 'em back after that, the mold is set.

Population growth is a weapon too, even if you put guns in their hands, and form up armies, its numbers of ''boots on the ground'' that... and that might include hordes of refugees/migrants.

How does anti birth control figure in?

Dunno.

I just thought that the immigration issue was interesting in that the same anti-immigration rhetoric was used in 1922 as is used today and today the anti-Muslim demagoguery has replaced the anti-Catholic baloney.

the issue of Dreyfus’ guilt is secondary to the value of this case as an early prototype of the modern power struggles, including the Trump’s. In other words, it was much more interesting how and why the public intellectuals took sides in this case and what they wrote as their arguments.

It was about the bankers and Jewish ideologues who fiercely hated Catholic-Christian prominence in France and took advantage of a situation -- even exacerbated the conflict far beyond its actual harms -- to tear down those age-old cultural institutions.

b. Quibble with Kiza's assessment that Dreyfuss was "an early prototype of the modern power struggle . . ."I've been reading E Michael Jones's The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, particularly his overview of Jews in Poland, over a span of about 700 years.

Most interesting about Jones's work is the extent of its reliance on "the first modern Jewish historian," Heinrich Graetz: this reliance insulates Jones against the charge of antisemitism.Graetz, a German Jew who wrote in German, was deeply disdainful of Polish Jewish deep involvement in Kabalah, with attendant study and practice of deceptive and hair-splitting forms of argument. Rabbi Henry Abramson validates this interpretation of Graetz's history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqeRpiVQ-9Y

As the quoted passages, above, from Ruth Harris's biography of the Dreyfuss affair notes,

“Jews could be . . . be seen as dangerous advocates of revolution. . . .the association of socialism with Marx . . . and the growing prevalence of Jewish activists within the working class movement strengthened fears of an internationale of Jewish revolutionaries bent on subversion. This negative portrait was strengthened when Eastern European Jews – unassimilated and often deeply religious — arrived from Russia after a wave of pogroms between 1881 and 1884."

Through a series of 18th and 19th century partitions, by 1881-1884 much of Poland had become Russia; thus the "unassimilated Eastern European Jews" brought with them to France (as also to Germany in the same period) many of the negative traits that Graetz himself ascribed to Polish Jews, and that had become deeply ingrained over centuries of practice.

Thus, the Dreyfuss case was not so much "an early prototype of the modern power struggles," but rather the enactment of a well-rehearsed pattern.

To observe in real-time how correct Kiza is in stating that that "the Trump" power struggles mirror those power struggles, tune into the Senate confirmation hearings for the ambassador to Israel; observe how American political leaders put Israel's interests unconditionally above those of the American people, just as Jones details how Polish landowners, monarchs and nobility willing surrendered their own interests to those of Polish Jewish arendators.Joseph Lieberman's testimony is a case in point: it just happened, by extraordinary coincidence! , Lieberman avers, that when Lieberman left the Senate he became a partner in the law firm of David Friedman, "a fine and upstanding, highly professional bankruptcy lawyer."

--I've changed my mind/mantra: USA is not so much "Weimar;" USA today is 19th century Jewish Poland -- Weimar was much the same.

Love reading your well resourced comments. I fully agree that:

the Dreyfuss case was … rather the enactment of a well-rehearsed pattern.

But to explain what I meant by: “…an early prototype of the modern power struggles…” , by modern I meant post-Gutenberg, early mass-media times when intellectualism became available for mass consumption and the institution of public opinion has been created. Otherwise, I have no doubt that the Jewish “revolutionary spirit” has very old, probably ancient roots (pre-Roman times?). 700 years ago most power action would have been in, at and around the royal court, instead of the court of public opinion. Perhaps, the prominent Jews understood the power of the new development better than others and quickly learned how to manipulate and harness this public opinion for their own purposes (i.e. invested their money into it). This is why nowadays main public media in the West are controlled by the Jewish interests, unfortunately those most extreme in their revolutionary spirit.

In other words, in Dreyfus case “the enactment of a well-rehearsed pattern” has been done by new, almost contemporary means.

… observe how American political leaders put Israel’s interests unconditionally above those of the American people, just as Jones details how Polish landowners, monarchs and nobility willing surrendered their own interests to those of Polish Jewish arendators …

yes, excellent parallel. I will go find Jones’ book, thanks for the reference.

Well that's a logical argument but I still see the Rothschilds as heavily assimilated to Western Enlightenment values and socially part of the upper classes of Western Europe so I would need convincing, based on a lot more knowledge than I have about France, that a Rothschild would bother to do anything murky like setting up the Dreyfus affair, even if they were good at that, at that level, rather than, say, subsidise a newspaper or just get on with promoting the Zionist dream. The last was, after all, an innocent enough dream for most I guess. It was not blindness or wickedness to fail to see that creating a bustling Jewish led economy in part of the Ottoman Empire where there were few people living on low productivity activities was going to be such a disaster. (Still looking like a disaster I concede but maybe not in 100 years time. BTW a friend has just sent me a pair of emails one of which opined that Trump had outfoxed Netanyahu with the master stroke of withdrawing somewhat from the two state position of the US hitherto and the other of which asked for odds on their being a civil war in Israel within 10 years....)

Was not Celine right when he said (wrote): « le capitaine Dreyfus est bien plus grand que le capitaine Bonaparte. Il a conquis la France et l’a gardée »(captain Dreyfus is greater than captain Bonaparte. He conquered France and kept her)?
All the contortions of Eco were meant to show that the Protocols were the fabrication of the eternal anti-Semitic conspiracy.
Interesting that Shamir quotes Guenon. His book “The Reign of Quantity & the Signs of the Times” should be mandatory reading.

Why? French traditionalism wasn't the dead dog it is today. (eg) If the Pope hadn't shot down Maurras he would've had a very good chance at power.

Well that’s a logical argument but I still see the Rothschilds as heavily assimilated to Western Enlightenment values and socially part of the upper classes of Western Europe so I would need convincing, based on a lot more knowledge than I have about France, that a Rothschild would bother to do anything murky like setting up the Dreyfus affair, even if they were good at that, at that level, rather than, say, subsidise a newspaper or just get on with promoting the Zionist dream. The last was, after all, an innocent enough dream for most I guess. It was not blindness or wickedness to fail to see that creating a bustling Jewish led economy in part of the Ottoman Empire where there were few people living on low productivity activities was going to be such a disaster. (Still looking like a disaster I concede but maybe not in 100 years time. BTW a friend has just sent me a pair of emails one of which opined that Trump had outfoxed Netanyahu with the master stroke of withdrawing somewhat from the two state position of the US hitherto and the other of which asked for odds on their being a civil war in Israel within 10 years….)

Huh? No mention at all of the Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572 and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 which broke the Huguenot/protestant church in France a century before the French Revolution, during which the Jacobins paid the Roman Catholics back in their own coin.

IOW maybe karma really is a witch and there are more than a few in the closet that our witch hunter ignores.

Coligny was a real SOB (pardon) and deserved what he got. Things got out of hand, but the French Protestants, who were in many though not all cases a nasty bunch (vide the Camisards) were hardly lambs led to the slaughter.

The St. Barthelemy's (night) Massacre was 'pay back in the Huguenot own coin'. The Huguenots were the fanatical iconoclast revolutionaries who first brutally attacked the Catholics, priests, monks, nuns, monasticism, images, destroying church buildings, ancient relics and texts, exhuming and burning bodies of saints, spitting on images of the Christ, desecrating the Eucharist (very much like the ISIS in recent times). The atrocities committed (very much like their counterpart in Henry VIII's or later in Cromwell's England) did not endear the Huguenots to the still largely Catholic mass of the French. That led to the Wars of religion in France. The Jacobins only resumed the interrupted work of the Huguenots.

Huh? No mention at all of the Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572 and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 which broke the Huguenot/protestant church in France a century before the French Revolution, during which the Jacobins paid the Roman Catholics back in their own coin.

IOW maybe karma really is a witch and there are more than a few in the closet that our witch hunter ignores.

Coligny was a real SOB (pardon) and deserved what he got. Things got out of hand, but the French Protestants, who were in many though not all cases a nasty bunch (vide the Camisards) were hardly lambs led to the slaughter.

Calvinism gave us Swiss Cathedral vandalism, regicide in England and the regime of Oliver Cromwell (who was disastrous for both Britain and Ireland), the New England Puritan War on Christmas, and apartheid South Africa.

Huh? No mention at all of the Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572 and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 which broke the Huguenot/protestant church in France a century before the French Revolution, during which the Jacobins paid the Roman Catholics back in their own coin.

IOW maybe karma really is a witch and there are more than a few in the closet that our witch hunter ignores.

The St. Barthelemy’s (night) Massacre was ‘pay back in the Huguenot own coin’. The Huguenots were the fanatical iconoclast revolutionaries who first brutally attacked the Catholics, priests, monks, nuns, monasticism, images, destroying church buildings, ancient relics and texts, exhuming and burning bodies of saints, spitting on images of the Christ, desecrating the Eucharist (very much like the ISIS in recent times). The atrocities committed (very much like their counterpart in Henry VIII’s or later in Cromwell’s England) did not endear the Huguenots to the still largely Catholic mass of the French. That led to the Wars of religion in France.
The Jacobins only resumed the interrupted work of the Huguenots.

When he was in the process of leaving behind his Marxist atheism and entering the Catholic Church, historian Eugene Genovese wrote an essay in which he noted that the little Commie college students of his undergrad days in NYCm, many of them Jewish, saw Cromwell and the Puritans as great role models and even as necessary precursors to Modern atheist revolutions and revolutionary groups.

I think that assessment is correct, as is yours about French Huguenots.

It should come as no real shock to anyone who knows the importance of genetic heritage and resulting cultural proclivities that much of the source, especially its most violently revolutionary strands, of French Protestantism came from the lands of Catharism's great strength.

One remarkable attribute of Protestant propaganda that I've come to notice more and more, is that they leave the Communists far behind in that department. In their attempts to denigrate the Church, they have to claim that the Catholic Church was incapable of reform and had to be thrown out root and branch. Thus their apologetics consist in claiming that before them all was darkness in Europe and any moves by the Church to change its methods was only to cover its tracks. In this they match up with Muslims who similarly claim that before them all was 'jahaliya' or under the veil of ignorance.

I have studied a great deal of French history. The answer is no, the clergy were not royalist. After tens of thousands of them were slaughtered during the revolution, they were scrupulous about staying out of politics.

They were however, pro worker, pro children and anti exploitive capitalism, financial fraud etc.
FYI the French revolutionaries set up Cayenne, Devils island and the other penal islands as prisons for priests.

It was a death penalty offense to be a catholic priest, monk, or nun during the revolution

The younger priests were able to hide out in the forests, live off the land and continue to take care of the parishes

But the nuns and older priests were captured and guillotined in public. It didn't look well to see white haired old men and nun nurses from the local hospitals guillotined so they were shipped off to die on Devils island.

Before Devils Island the revolutionaries would put the clergy on old barges, chain them together, knock holes in the barges, tow them out to the river or harbor and let them drown.

After Nantes harbor and numerous rivers became blocked by these barges and bodies the revolutionaries came up with the idea of Devils island

Want a source? Learn to read French and get a card at a good university library

Your final 2 sentence paragraph makes me think about the kinds of facts and ideas that rarely get translated into English. They tend to be things that might lead people to understand the world in ways that do not march in lock step with the standard English vision.

The St. Barthelemy's (night) Massacre was 'pay back in the Huguenot own coin'. The Huguenots were the fanatical iconoclast revolutionaries who first brutally attacked the Catholics, priests, monks, nuns, monasticism, images, destroying church buildings, ancient relics and texts, exhuming and burning bodies of saints, spitting on images of the Christ, desecrating the Eucharist (very much like the ISIS in recent times). The atrocities committed (very much like their counterpart in Henry VIII's or later in Cromwell's England) did not endear the Huguenots to the still largely Catholic mass of the French. That led to the Wars of religion in France. The Jacobins only resumed the interrupted work of the Huguenots.

When he was in the process of leaving behind his Marxist atheism and entering the Catholic Church, historian Eugene Genovese wrote an essay in which he noted that the little Commie college students of his undergrad days in NYCm, many of them Jewish, saw Cromwell and the Puritans as great role models and even as necessary precursors to Modern atheist revolutions and revolutionary groups.

I think that assessment is correct, as is yours about French Huguenots.

It should come as no real shock to anyone who knows the importance of genetic heritage and resulting cultural proclivities that much of the source, especially its most violently revolutionary strands, of French Protestantism came from the lands of Catharism’s great strength.

Which were also the lands of Judaism greatest strength. What was the Occitania (Languedoc, Aquitaine, Toulousain, Provence). Anyone slightly familiar with French history knows that the Languedoc was the home of "numerous and prosperous Jewish communities" at least since the 6th Century AD, but an "era of great prosperity for the Jews of Languedoc set in with the accession of the Carlovingian dynasty... Pepin the Short conceded them the right of enjoying hereditary allodial tenure; and this right was respected by all the Carlovingians, in spite of the protests of some of the clergy. Large communities possessing synagogues and important commercial establishments existed at Béziers, Carcassonne, Lodève, Lunel, Mende, Montpellier, Narbonne, Nîmes, Pamiers, Posquières, Saint-Gilles, and Toulouse....*

Take for example the history of Machir of Narbonne:"A Babylonian scholar who settled in Narbonne, France, at the end of the eighth century and whose descendants were for many generations the leaders of that important community. According to a tradition preserved by Abraham ibn Daud in his "Sefer ha-Ḳabbalah," Machir was a descendant of the house of David. He was sent to Narbonne by the calif Harun al-Rashid at the request of Charlemagne, who, it is said, received the Babylonian scholar with great honor, conferred upon him and his descendants the title of "king of the Jews," and gave him a section of the city of Narbonne. Although this relation between Machir and Charlemagne is probably legendary, it is a fact that the Machir family enjoyed for centuries many privileges and that its members bore the title of "nasi" (prince). Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Narbonne in 1165, speaks of the exalted position occupied by the descendants of Machir, and the "Royal Letters" of 1364 (Doat Collection, pp. 53 et seq., 339-353) also record the existence of a Jewish "king" at Narbonne. The place of residence of the Machir family at Narbonne was designated in official documents as "Cortada Regis Judæorum" (Saige, "Hist. des Juifs du Languedoc," p. 44). Machir is said to have founded a Talmudical school there which vied in greatness with those of Babylonia and which attracted pupils from many distant points".

The privileges bestowed upon them by the Carolingians were so exorbitant that led to the reaction of the 'obscurantist' clergy (see the 'De Insolentia Judeorum' of Agobard Bishop of Lyon)There were shocking conversion to Judaism (the case of Bodo, the chaplain of Louis the Pious who went to Spain and converted there, actively fighting against Spanish Christians, who asked aid of the king of the Franks).

More to the point of the origins of Catharism: "The good-will of the counts of Toulouse displayed itself far beyond mere toleration; they even entrusted the Jews with important public offices. Raymond V. about 1170 appointed a Jew as bailiff in his domain of Saint-Gilles, and, with the exception of the counts of Montpellier, his example was followed by many other counts and barons. The nomination of Jews to public offices in the dominions of the viscounts of Béziers and Carcassonne was a common occurrence under Viscount Roger II. and his successor Raymond Roger.The crusade against the Albigenses at the beginning of the thirteenth century brought a great reaction in the condition of the Jews of Languedoc. Accused by the clergy of having fostered among the Christians a spirit of rebellion against the Church, oppressive laws were enacted against them in the various councils. At that held at Saint-Gilles in 1209 Raymond VI. was compelled to swear that in the future neither he nor his vassals would entrust public or private offices to Jews; and, except at Narbonne, where Jews served as brokers until 1306, this oath was strictly observed in the territory of the counts of Toulouse".

But you will ask about the Templars. That would be too long a story. I'll give just a hint:

"Benveniste is the surname of an old, noble, rich, and scholarly Jewish family of Narbonne, France and northern Spain from the 11th century. The family was present in the 11th to the 15th centuries in Provence, France, Barcelona, Aragon and Castile' Spain. Family members received honorary titles from the authorities and were members of the administration of the kingdom of Aragon and Castile. They were the Baillie ("Bayle") - the Tax Officer and Treasurer, Alfaquim - Senior Advisor to the King and Royal Physician in Barcelona and Aragon in the 12th and 13th centuries.They held the title of "Nasi" (prince in Hebrew), a name given to members of the House of David, in the Jewish communities (mainly Barcelona) and were prominent religious and secular leaders in the 11th to the 14th centuries. In the 14th to the 15th century they held the titles of "de la Cavalleria"—"of the knights" (a name given by the Templars to their treasurers and tax collectors) and Don—a noble person in Aragon and Castile.After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 they were dispersed mainly to Portugal, Greece - Salonica other parts of the Turkish Empire and North African countries. In Portugal they were forced to convert to Christianity in 1497 and became one of the rich traders and bankers (the Mendes family) of Europe" (@https://www.geni.com/projects/Benveniste-Family/18534).

But if we talked about Templars we cannot pass over the well-established fact that the creator of the higher grades of Free Masonry in America, Etienne Morin of 'Israelite confession' was born in Cahors and lived in Bordeaux wherefrom he moved to Jamaica.

the Dreyfuss case was ... rather the enactment of a well-rehearsed pattern.

But to explain what I meant by: "...an early prototype of the modern power struggles..." , by modern I meant post-Gutenberg, early mass-media times when intellectualism became available for mass consumption and the institution of public opinion has been created. Otherwise, I have no doubt that the Jewish "revolutionary spirit" has very old, probably ancient roots (pre-Roman times?). 700 years ago most power action would have been in, at and around the royal court, instead of the court of public opinion. Perhaps, the prominent Jews understood the power of the new development better than others and quickly learned how to manipulate and harness this public opinion for their own purposes (i.e. invested their money into it). This is why nowadays main public media in the West are controlled by the Jewish interests, unfortunately those most extreme in their revolutionary spirit.

In other words, in Dreyfus case "the enactment of a well-rehearsed pattern" has been done by new, almost contemporary means.

... observe how American political leaders put Israel’s interests unconditionally above those of the American people, just as Jones details how Polish landowners, monarchs and nobility willing surrendered their own interests to those of Polish Jewish arendators ...

yes, excellent parallel. I will go find Jones' book, thanks for the reference.

We are not so surprised, because the activity of the Jewish lobby in Washington has accustomed us to the fact that many Jews indeed are ready to sacrifice the interests of their own country for the sake of their Middle Eastern brothers and sisters.

Had these words come out of my mouth, both Sam and iffen would’ve been all over me. Instead, silence…

When he was in the process of leaving behind his Marxist atheism and entering the Catholic Church, historian Eugene Genovese wrote an essay in which he noted that the little Commie college students of his undergrad days in NYCm, many of them Jewish, saw Cromwell and the Puritans as great role models and even as necessary precursors to Modern atheist revolutions and revolutionary groups.

I think that assessment is correct, as is yours about French Huguenots.

It should come as no real shock to anyone who knows the importance of genetic heritage and resulting cultural proclivities that much of the source, especially its most violently revolutionary strands, of French Protestantism came from the lands of Catharism's great strength.

@ the lands of Catharism’s great strength.

Which were also the lands of Judaism greatest strength. What was the Occitania (Languedoc, Aquitaine, Toulousain, Provence). Anyone slightly familiar with French history knows that the Languedoc was the home of “numerous and prosperous Jewish communities” at least since the 6th Century AD, but an “era of great prosperity for the Jews of Languedoc set in with the accession of the Carlovingian dynasty… Pepin the Short conceded them the right of enjoying hereditary allodial tenure; and this right was respected by all the Carlovingians, in spite of the protests of some of the clergy. Large communities possessing synagogues and important commercial establishments existed at Béziers, Carcassonne, Lodève, Lunel, Mende, Montpellier, Narbonne, Nîmes, Pamiers, Posquières, Saint-Gilles, and Toulouse….*

Take for example the history of Machir of Narbonne:
“A Babylonian scholar who settled in Narbonne, France, at the end of the eighth century and whose descendants were for many generations the leaders of that important community. According to a tradition preserved by Abraham ibn Daud in his “Sefer ha-Ḳabbalah,” Machir was a descendant of the house of David. He was sent to Narbonne by the calif Harun al-Rashid at the request of Charlemagne, who, it is said, received the Babylonian scholar with great honor, conferred upon him and his descendants the title of “king of the Jews,” and gave him a section of the city of Narbonne. Although this relation between Machir and Charlemagne is probably legendary, it is a fact that the Machir family enjoyed for centuries many privileges and that its members bore the title of “nasi” (prince). Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Narbonne in 1165, speaks of the exalted position occupied by the descendants of Machir, and the “Royal Letters” of 1364 (Doat Collection, pp. 53 et seq., 339-353) also record the existence of a Jewish “king” at Narbonne. The place of residence of the Machir family at Narbonne was designated in official documents as “Cortada Regis Judæorum” (Saige, “Hist. des Juifs du Languedoc,” p. 44). Machir is said to have founded a Talmudical school there which vied in greatness with those of Babylonia and which attracted pupils from many distant points”.

The privileges bestowed upon them by the Carolingians were so exorbitant that led to the reaction of the ‘obscurantist’ clergy (see the ‘De Insolentia Judeorum’ of Agobard Bishop of Lyon)
There were shocking conversion to Judaism (the case of Bodo, the chaplain of Louis the Pious who went to Spain and converted there, actively fighting against Spanish Christians, who asked aid of the king of the Franks).

More to the point of the origins of Catharism:
“The good-will of the counts of Toulouse displayed itself far beyond mere toleration; they even entrusted the Jews with important public offices. Raymond V. about 1170 appointed a Jew as bailiff in his domain of Saint-Gilles, and, with the exception of the counts of Montpellier, his example was followed by many other counts and barons. The nomination of Jews to public offices in the dominions of the viscounts of Béziers and Carcassonne was a common occurrence under Viscount Roger II. and his successor Raymond Roger.
The crusade against the Albigenses at the beginning of the thirteenth century brought a great reaction in the condition of the Jews of Languedoc. Accused by the clergy of having fostered among the Christians a spirit of rebellion against the Church, oppressive laws were enacted against them in the various councils. At that held at Saint-Gilles in 1209 Raymond VI. was compelled to swear that in the future neither he nor his vassals would entrust public or private offices to Jews; and, except at Narbonne, where Jews served as brokers until 1306, this oath was strictly observed in the territory of the counts of Toulouse”.

But you will ask about the Templars. That would be too long a story. I’ll give just a hint:

“Benveniste is the surname of an old, noble, rich, and scholarly Jewish family of Narbonne, France and northern Spain from the 11th century. The family was present in the 11th to the 15th centuries in Provence, France, Barcelona, Aragon and Castile’ Spain. Family members received honorary titles from the authorities and were members of the administration of the kingdom of Aragon and Castile. They were the Baillie (“Bayle”) – the Tax Officer and Treasurer, Alfaquim – Senior Advisor to the King and Royal Physician in Barcelona and Aragon in the 12th and 13th centuries.
They held the title of “Nasi” (prince in Hebrew), a name given to members of the House of David, in the Jewish communities (mainly Barcelona) and were prominent religious and secular leaders in the 11th to the 14th centuries. In the 14th to the 15th century they held the titles of “de la Cavalleria”—”of the knights” (a name given by the Templars to their treasurers and tax collectors) and Don—a noble person in Aragon and Castile.
After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 they were dispersed mainly to Portugal, Greece – Salonica other parts of the Turkish Empire and North African countries. In Portugal they were forced to convert to Christianity in 1497 and became one of the rich traders and bankers (the Mendes family) of Europe” (@https://www.geni.com/projects/Benveniste-Family/18534).

But if we talked about Templars we cannot pass over the well-established fact that the creator of the higher grades of Free Masonry in America, Etienne Morin of ‘Israelite confession’ was born in Cahors and lived in Bordeaux wherefrom he moved to Jamaica.

The St. Barthelemy's (night) Massacre was 'pay back in the Huguenot own coin'. The Huguenots were the fanatical iconoclast revolutionaries who first brutally attacked the Catholics, priests, monks, nuns, monasticism, images, destroying church buildings, ancient relics and texts, exhuming and burning bodies of saints, spitting on images of the Christ, desecrating the Eucharist (very much like the ISIS in recent times). The atrocities committed (very much like their counterpart in Henry VIII's or later in Cromwell's England) did not endear the Huguenots to the still largely Catholic mass of the French. That led to the Wars of religion in France. The Jacobins only resumed the interrupted work of the Huguenots.

One remarkable attribute of Protestant propaganda that I’ve come to notice more and more, is that they leave the Communists far behind in that department. In their attempts to denigrate the Church, they have to claim that the Catholic Church was incapable of reform and had to be thrown out root and branch. Thus their apologetics consist in claiming that before them all was darkness in Europe and any moves by the Church to change its methods was only to cover its tracks. In this they match up with Muslims who similarly claim that before them all was ‘jahaliya’ or under the veil of ignorance.

You have to take into consideration that Protestantism is in fact what Heinrich Heine, who was a Jewish convert and distant relative of Karl Marx, said about it in his 'Confessions': “Are not the Protestant Scots Hebrews, with their Biblical names, their Jerusalem, pharisaistic cant? And is not their religion a Judaism which allows you to eat pork?”And that their objections to Church wealth resulted in the looting of Church possessions, a form of 'primitive accumulation of capital'.

One remarkable attribute of Protestant propaganda that I've come to notice more and more, is that they leave the Communists far behind in that department. In their attempts to denigrate the Church, they have to claim that the Catholic Church was incapable of reform and had to be thrown out root and branch. Thus their apologetics consist in claiming that before them all was darkness in Europe and any moves by the Church to change its methods was only to cover its tracks. In this they match up with Muslims who similarly claim that before them all was 'jahaliya' or under the veil of ignorance.

You have to take into consideration that Protestantism is in fact what Heinrich Heine, who was a Jewish convert and distant relative of Karl Marx, said about it in his ‘Confessions’:
“Are not the Protestant Scots Hebrews, with their Biblical names, their Jerusalem, pharisaistic cant? And is not their religion a Judaism which allows you to eat pork?”
And that their objections to Church wealth resulted in the looting of Church possessions, a form of ‘primitive accumulation of capital’.

It seems that at least a few people who read Israel Shamir are aware of the long background to the Modern kulturkampf. Central to the knowledge is something I learned as an undegrad from a history professor. The class was on the rise of modern Europe. At some point early on, the prof stopped what he was doing and told us of something that baffled him. He said that on the project he’d been researching after his dissertation, which had never been completed and published, he’d ;earned that the vast majority of the printers for Protestant tracts, and the related political tracts that were anti-clerical or anti-royal and anti-noblility, were published by Jews.

He wandered around that subject the rest of the period, and never returned to it. I think he simply could not imagine how and why that could have been the case. He told us that Luther’s move from seeing Jews as his natural allies that he thought would convert once they understood sola fide was when he learned that Jews, many of them the same ones who published his work, also published the works of his Reformer enemies like Calvin and Zwingli.

Back to France – either France repents, by and large, for its revolution and begins to rediscover its historic Faith, or France will die, culturally and even linguistically as well as genetically, replaced by Semitic and African genes and cultures, with Islam ultimately hegemonic and Jews allowed much free run as long as they remain viciously anti-Catholic and anti-white Gentile.

Speaking of anti-Catholic bigotry, I was reminded of this which contains some interesting and timely considerations even if slightly off-topic.

Down in South Carolina the Minute Men of South Carolina have sprung into being to save the State and its schools for Protestantism. They have discovered that despite the present percentage restriction of immigration we are "the dumping ground for vast hordes of ignorant and illiterate, and in many cases criminal, peoples from Roman Catholic countries."

Why, ask the Minute Men, is it impossible to secure adequate laws to prevent these evils and to stop these immigrants from "enjoying the fruits of our ancestors' sacrifices and labors while we, the rightful inheritors, are being gradually forced out of many of the chances of livelihood because we cannot live and compete with this motley scum?" Their answer, of course, is that a small minority "well-organized and generaled" is "trying to make this nation Roman Catholic."

Huh? No mention at all of the Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572 and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 which broke the Huguenot/protestant church in France a century before the French Revolution, during which the Jacobins paid the Roman Catholics back in their own coin.

IOW maybe karma really is a witch and there are more than a few in the closet that our witch hunter ignores.

The best and most comprehensive history of St Barttholomew’s Eve can be found in William Thomas Wash’s masterpiece, Philip II.

Coligny was a real SOB (pardon) and deserved what he got. Things got out of hand, but the French Protestants, who were in many though not all cases a nasty bunch (vide the Camisards) were hardly lambs led to the slaughter.

Calvinism gave us Swiss Cathedral vandalism, regicide in England and the regime of Oliver Cromwell (who was disastrous for both Britain and Ireland), the New England Puritan War on Christmas, and apartheid South Africa.

The St. Barthelemy's (night) Massacre was 'pay back in the Huguenot own coin'. The Huguenots were the fanatical iconoclast revolutionaries who first brutally attacked the Catholics, priests, monks, nuns, monasticism, images, destroying church buildings, ancient relics and texts, exhuming and burning bodies of saints, spitting on images of the Christ, desecrating the Eucharist (very much like the ISIS in recent times). The atrocities committed (very much like their counterpart in Henry VIII's or later in Cromwell's England) did not endear the Huguenots to the still largely Catholic mass of the French. That led to the Wars of religion in France. The Jacobins only resumed the interrupted work of the Huguenots.

The parallels between Communist and Protestant fanaticism are clear to any thinking observer.

There’s lots of substance in this article and many allusions to real events that did skew modern views of 19th century European history. But there is no real evidence here that should sway anyone’s notion of Dreyfus’ innocence. If he had in fact been guilty the Nazis certainly would have gotten their paws on archival evidence and spread it far and wide. Dreyfus was a jerk, I’ll give Shamir that much, but he was also a French military officer. Those two things are a damn good ways from mutually exclusive. “Shamir” is sketchy character who is always rhetorically gunning for “the Jews.” While he may or may not actually be of Hebrew extraction himself it would be nice to know what his beef with the tribe is. Maybe he misses his foreskin.

If he had in fact been guilty the Nazis certainly would have gotten their paws on archival evidence and spread it far and wide.

Symptoms of Nazi Derangement Syndrome. ^

Why would Germans be concerned about the 1894 Dreyfuss kerfluffle?
They'd been through a war, starvation, a revolution, an unjust treaty, infiltration by Bolsheviks, hyperinflation, more starvation, massive influx of immigrants to an already seriously distressed economic, social and political state. NSDAP came to power to solve those problems.
Believe it or not, it's not always about da Joos.

In the first half of this video, Mark Weber discusses the economic activity -- and success-- of National Socialists, 1933 - 1940. He cites statistics as well as the observation and conclusions of a Jewish author and also of J K Galbraith, an eminent economist of the time. They agree: Germany achieved prosperity through civilian economic investment that was unparalleled anywhere else in the world, including in FDR's New Deal programs, and that Jews in Germany prospered along with the rest of Germans. Further, Weber cites the fact that the National Socialist government assisted a Jewish clothing firm that had fallen on hard times, reasoning that it was far wiser to assist it to stay in business than to create unemployment.

I came across this video while searching for the complete pdf of a paper by Francis Nicosia, titled, Revisionist Zionism in Germany, 1933 - 1938. The paper opens thus:

". . .on 30 January 1933, the fortunes of Revisionism within the German Zionist movement were at perhaps their lowest ebb since 1925. At a time when National Socialism achieved the power with which to destroy the Jewish community in Germany, the Revisionist movement found itself in a state of bitter division, demoralization and uncertainty. "

Sounds like Jews in Germany were not that keen on zionism, and as we know from other authors, including leading Jewish zionists such as Rabbi Stephen Wise, German Jews besought their American Jewish (zionist) brethren to cease their agitation since Jews in Germany were not unduly disturbed by their situation in the Third Reich.

In the second half of the video, Weber used a Wikipedia entry about National Socialist economy as an example of how the history of Germany is distorted, largely by Jewish controllers of discourse, and how dangerous that practice is. The short passage from Nicosia's paper exhibits the same bad habit of prejudicially distorting National Socialism. He's not writing history, he's rolling out yet another polemic, calculated to ingratiate himself with the PTB and protect his career.

There's lots of substance in this article and many allusions to real events that did skew modern views of 19th century European history. But there is no real evidence here that should sway anyone's notion of Dreyfus' innocence. If he had in fact been guilty the Nazis certainly would have gotten their paws on archival evidence and spread it far and wide. Dreyfus was a jerk, I'll give Shamir that much, but he was also a French military officer. Those two things are a damn good ways from mutually exclusive. "Shamir" is sketchy character who is always rhetorically gunning for "the Jews." While he may or may not actually be of Hebrew extraction himself it would be nice to know what his beef with the tribe is. Maybe he misses his foreskin.

If he had in fact been guilty the Nazis certainly would have gotten their paws on archival evidence and spread it far and wide.

Symptoms of Nazi Derangement Syndrome. ^

Why would Germans be concerned about the 1894 Dreyfuss kerfluffle?
They’d been through a war, starvation, a revolution, an unjust treaty, infiltration by Bolsheviks, hyperinflation, more starvation, massive influx of immigrants to an already seriously distressed economic, social and political state. NSDAP came to power to solve those problems.
Believe it or not, it’s not always about da Joos.

There's lots of substance in this article and many allusions to real events that did skew modern views of 19th century European history. But there is no real evidence here that should sway anyone's notion of Dreyfus' innocence. If he had in fact been guilty the Nazis certainly would have gotten their paws on archival evidence and spread it far and wide. Dreyfus was a jerk, I'll give Shamir that much, but he was also a French military officer. Those two things are a damn good ways from mutually exclusive. "Shamir" is sketchy character who is always rhetorically gunning for "the Jews." While he may or may not actually be of Hebrew extraction himself it would be nice to know what his beef with the tribe is. Maybe he misses his foreskin.

In the first half of this video, Mark Weber discusses the economic activity — and success– of National Socialists, 1933 – 1940. He cites statistics as well as the observation and conclusions of a Jewish author and also of J K Galbraith, an eminent economist of the time. They agree: Germany achieved prosperity through civilian economic investment that was unparalleled anywhere else in the world, including in FDR’s New Deal programs, and that Jews in Germany prospered along with the rest of Germans. Further, Weber cites the fact that the National Socialist government assisted a Jewish clothing firm that had fallen on hard times, reasoning that it was far wiser to assist it to stay in business than to create unemployment.

I came across this video while searching for the complete pdf of a paper by Francis Nicosia, titled, Revisionist Zionism in Germany, 1933 – 1938. The paper opens thus:

“. . .on 30 January 1933, the fortunes of Revisionism within the German Zionist movement were at perhaps their lowest ebb since 1925. At a time when National Socialism achieved the power with which to destroy the Jewish community in Germany, the Revisionist movement found itself in a state of bitter division, demoralization and uncertainty. “

Sounds like Jews in Germany were not that keen on zionism, and as we know from other authors, including leading Jewish zionists such as Rabbi Stephen Wise, German Jews besought their American Jewish (zionist) brethren to cease their agitation since Jews in Germany were not unduly disturbed by their situation in the Third Reich.

In the second half of the video, Weber used a Wikipedia entry about National Socialist economy as an example of how the history of Germany is distorted, largely by Jewish controllers of discourse, and how dangerous that practice is. The short passage from Nicosia’s paper exhibits the same bad habit of prejudicially distorting National Socialism. He’s not writing history, he’s rolling out yet another polemic, calculated to ingratiate himself with the PTB and protect his career.

Approximately half of German Jews emigrated before the outbreak of war made it virtually impossible. That the Nazis periodically called for boycotts of Jewish businesses even before 1938 is a matter of historical fact. But since emigration could involve the confiscation of assets, it is likely that those Jews who had property might prefer to sit tight and hope that Nazi anti-Semitism would blow over. Indeed, prior to 1938, according to Richard Grunberger's Social History Of The Third Reich, the Nazis generally did not take action against Jewish-owned firms because it might result in their "Aryan" staff being thrown out of work at a time when the Nazis were trying to achieve full employment. 1938, the year of Kristallnacht, was however a watershed. As war approached Nazi anti-Semitism sharpened.

If he had in fact been guilty the Nazis certainly would have gotten their paws on archival evidence and spread it far and wide.

Symptoms of Nazi Derangement Syndrome. ^

Why would Germans be concerned about the 1894 Dreyfuss kerfluffle?
They'd been through a war, starvation, a revolution, an unjust treaty, infiltration by Bolsheviks, hyperinflation, more starvation, massive influx of immigrants to an already seriously distressed economic, social and political state. NSDAP came to power to solve those problems.
Believe it or not, it's not always about da Joos.

The Germans denied that Dreyfus was spying for them and never reversed themselves on this later, as far as I know.

In the first half of this video, Mark Weber discusses the economic activity -- and success-- of National Socialists, 1933 - 1940. He cites statistics as well as the observation and conclusions of a Jewish author and also of J K Galbraith, an eminent economist of the time. They agree: Germany achieved prosperity through civilian economic investment that was unparalleled anywhere else in the world, including in FDR's New Deal programs, and that Jews in Germany prospered along with the rest of Germans. Further, Weber cites the fact that the National Socialist government assisted a Jewish clothing firm that had fallen on hard times, reasoning that it was far wiser to assist it to stay in business than to create unemployment.

I came across this video while searching for the complete pdf of a paper by Francis Nicosia, titled, Revisionist Zionism in Germany, 1933 - 1938. The paper opens thus:

". . .on 30 January 1933, the fortunes of Revisionism within the German Zionist movement were at perhaps their lowest ebb since 1925. At a time when National Socialism achieved the power with which to destroy the Jewish community in Germany, the Revisionist movement found itself in a state of bitter division, demoralization and uncertainty. "

Sounds like Jews in Germany were not that keen on zionism, and as we know from other authors, including leading Jewish zionists such as Rabbi Stephen Wise, German Jews besought their American Jewish (zionist) brethren to cease their agitation since Jews in Germany were not unduly disturbed by their situation in the Third Reich.

In the second half of the video, Weber used a Wikipedia entry about National Socialist economy as an example of how the history of Germany is distorted, largely by Jewish controllers of discourse, and how dangerous that practice is. The short passage from Nicosia's paper exhibits the same bad habit of prejudicially distorting National Socialism. He's not writing history, he's rolling out yet another polemic, calculated to ingratiate himself with the PTB and protect his career.

Approximately half of German Jews emigrated before the outbreak of war made it virtually impossible. That the Nazis periodically called for boycotts of Jewish businesses even before 1938 is a matter of historical fact. But since emigration could involve the confiscation of assets, it is likely that those Jews who had property might prefer to sit tight and hope that Nazi anti-Semitism would blow over. Indeed, prior to 1938, according to Richard Grunberger’s Social History Of The Third Reich, the Nazis generally did not take action against Jewish-owned firms because it might result in their “Aryan” staff being thrown out of work at a time when the Nazis were trying to achieve full employment. 1938, the year of Kristallnacht, was however a watershed. As war approached Nazi anti-Semitism sharpened.

@the Nazis periodically called for boycotts of Jewish businesses even before 1938

One may wonder why:
(From Wikipedia)

"The Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933 was a boycott of German products by foreign critics of the Nazi Party in response to antisemitism in Nazi Germany following the rise of Adolf Hitler, commencing with his appointment as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. Those in the United Kingdom, United States and other places worldwide who opposed Hitler's policies, developed the boycott and its accompanying protests to encourage Nazi Germany to end the regime's often-expressed anti-Jewish attitude.
Following Adolf Hitler's appointment as German Chancellor in January 1933, an organized campaign of violence and boycotting which was undertaken by Hitler's Nazi Party against the Jews of Germany, to which critics responded with worldwide calls for protest and boycotting. An editorial in The Harvard Crimson on October 24, 1933 stated: "The role of the neutral nation will be, as always, a difficult one. But those nations sincerely desirous of European peace still have an opportunity to preserve it. An economic boycott of Germany to force its government to terms would so multiply its target as to make a shot impractical"
The boycott began in March 1933 in both Europe and the US. It continued until the entry of the US into the war.
In a meeting held at the Hotel Knickerbocker on March 21 by the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, former congressman William W. Cohen advocated in support of a strict boycott of German goods, stating that "Any Jew buying one penny's worth of merchandise made in Germany is a traitor to his people." The Jewish War Veterans planned a protest march in Manhattan from Cooper Square to New York City Hall, in which 20,000 would participate, including Jewish veterans in uniform, with no banners or placards allowed other than American and Jewish flags.
A series of protest rallies were held on March 27, 1933, with the New York City rally held at Madison Square Garden with an overflow crowd of 55,000 inside and outside the arena and parallel events held in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia and 70 other locations, with the proceedings at the New York rally broadcast worldwide. Speakers at the Garden included American Federation of Labor president William Green, Senator Robert F. Wagner, former Governor of New York Al Smith and a number of Christian clergyman, joining together in a call for the end of the brutal treatment of German Jews. Rabbi Moses S. Margolies, spiritual leader of Manhattan's Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, rose from his sickbed to address the crowd, bringing the 20,000 inside to their feet with his prayers that the antisemitic persecution cease and that the hearts of Israel's enemies should be softened. Jewish organizations — including the American Jewish Congress, American League for Defense of Jewish Rights, B'nai B'rith, the Jewish Labor Committee and Jewish War Veterans — joined together in a call for a boycott of German goods.
Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise: "The time for prudence and caution is past. We must speak up like men. How can we ask our Christian friends to lift their voices in protest against the wrongs suffered by Jews if we keep silent? … What is happening in Germany today may happen tomorrow in any other land on earth unless its is challenged and rebuked. It is not the German Jews who are being attacked. It is the Jews."
The Nazis and some outside Germany portrayed the boycott as an act of aggression, with the British newspaper the Daily Express using the headline: "Judea Declares War on Germany" on March 24, 1933
Joseph Goebbels proclaiming that a series of "sharp countermeasures" would be taken against the Jews of Germany in response to the protests of American Jews. Goebbels announced a ONE-DAY boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany of his own to commence on April 1, 1933 that Aryan Germans would aim against Jewish-owned businesses, which would be lifted if anti-Nazi protests were suspended". They have not been.
The boycott (which lasted until the entrance of the United States into World War II) did nothing to stop the harassment of Jews in Germany".

And who was against the boycott? Yes, you guessed it:
"The Association of German National Jews, a marginal group that had supported Hitler in his early years, had fought against the Jewish boycott of German goods.
The Haavara Agreement*, together with lessened dependence on trade with the West, had by 1937 largely negated the effects of the Jewish boycott on Germany".

*"The agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the immigration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939.
The agreement was designed to enable Jews fleeing anti-Semitic persecution under the new Hitler regime to transfer some portion of their assets to their refuge in British Mandatory Palestine". Actually, the agreement continued during the War (the case of Hungarian Jews).

Approximately half of German Jews emigrated before the outbreak of war made it virtually impossible. That the Nazis periodically called for boycotts of Jewish businesses even before 1938 is a matter of historical fact. But since emigration could involve the confiscation of assets, it is likely that those Jews who had property might prefer to sit tight and hope that Nazi anti-Semitism would blow over. Indeed, prior to 1938, according to Richard Grunberger's Social History Of The Third Reich, the Nazis generally did not take action against Jewish-owned firms because it might result in their "Aryan" staff being thrown out of work at a time when the Nazis were trying to achieve full employment. 1938, the year of Kristallnacht, was however a watershed. As war approached Nazi anti-Semitism sharpened.

@the Nazis periodically called for boycotts of Jewish businesses even before 1938

One may wonder why:
(From Wikipedia)

[MORE]

“The Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933 was a boycott of German products by foreign critics of the Nazi Party in response to antisemitism in Nazi Germany following the rise of Adolf Hitler, commencing with his appointment as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. Those in the United Kingdom, United States and other places worldwide who opposed Hitler’s policies, developed the boycott and its accompanying protests to encourage Nazi Germany to end the regime’s often-expressed anti-Jewish attitude.
Following Adolf Hitler’s appointment as German Chancellor in January 1933, an organized campaign of violence and boycotting which was undertaken by Hitler’s Nazi Party against the Jews of Germany, to which critics responded with worldwide calls for protest and boycotting. An editorial in The Harvard Crimson on October 24, 1933 stated: “The role of the neutral nation will be, as always, a difficult one. But those nations sincerely desirous of European peace still have an opportunity to preserve it. An economic boycott of Germany to force its government to terms would so multiply its target as to make a shot impractical”
The boycott began in March 1933 in both Europe and the US. It continued until the entry of the US into the war.
In a meeting held at the Hotel Knickerbocker on March 21 by the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, former congressman William W. Cohen advocated in support of a strict boycott of German goods, stating that “Any Jew buying one penny’s worth of merchandise made in Germany is a traitor to his people.” The Jewish War Veterans planned a protest march in Manhattan from Cooper Square to New York City Hall, in which 20,000 would participate, including Jewish veterans in uniform, with no banners or placards allowed other than American and Jewish flags.
A series of protest rallies were held on March 27, 1933, with the New York City rally held at Madison Square Garden with an overflow crowd of 55,000 inside and outside the arena and parallel events held in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia and 70 other locations, with the proceedings at the New York rally broadcast worldwide. Speakers at the Garden included American Federation of Labor president William Green, Senator Robert F. Wagner, former Governor of New York Al Smith and a number of Christian clergyman, joining together in a call for the end of the brutal treatment of German Jews. Rabbi Moses S. Margolies, spiritual leader of Manhattan’s Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, rose from his sickbed to address the crowd, bringing the 20,000 inside to their feet with his prayers that the antisemitic persecution cease and that the hearts of Israel’s enemies should be softened. Jewish organizations — including the American Jewish Congress, American League for Defense of Jewish Rights, B’nai B’rith, the Jewish Labor Committee and Jewish War Veterans — joined together in a call for a boycott of German goods.
Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise: “The time for prudence and caution is past. We must speak up like men. How can we ask our Christian friends to lift their voices in protest against the wrongs suffered by Jews if we keep silent? … What is happening in Germany today may happen tomorrow in any other land on earth unless its is challenged and rebuked. It is not the German Jews who are being attacked. It is the Jews.”
The Nazis and some outside Germany portrayed the boycott as an act of aggression, with the British newspaper the Daily Express using the headline: “Judea Declares War on Germany” on March 24, 1933
Joseph Goebbels proclaiming that a series of “sharp countermeasures” would be taken against the Jews of Germany in response to the protests of American Jews. Goebbels announced a ONE-DAY boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany of his own to commence on April 1, 1933 that Aryan Germans would aim against Jewish-owned businesses, which would be lifted if anti-Nazi protests were suspended”. They have not been.
The boycott (which lasted until the entrance of the United States into World War II) did nothing to stop the harassment of Jews in Germany”.

And who was against the boycott? Yes, you guessed it:
“The Association of German National Jews, a marginal group that had supported Hitler in his early years, had fought against the Jewish boycott of German goods.
The Haavara Agreement*, together with lessened dependence on trade with the West, had by 1937 largely negated the effects of the Jewish boycott on Germany”.

*”The agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the immigration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939.
The agreement was designed to enable Jews fleeing anti-Semitic persecution under the new Hitler regime to transfer some portion of their assets to their refuge in British Mandatory Palestine”. Actually, the agreement continued during the War (the case of Hungarian Jews).

Nazis were threatening boycotts of Jewish businesses before coming to power, and after they did quite a few of them were frustrated that these did not go far enough and seemed more symbolic than anything else. Nazis also expressed hostility to department stores, some of which were Jewish-owned, but this also reflected a proclaimed Nazi preference for small businesses, often threatened by the existence of department stores. But again, this hostility was not taken very far, not least because closing them down, as with Jewish businesses, might have throw "Aryans" out of work.
If the boycotts directed at Germany were losing any effect by 1937, it seems strange that the Nazis radicalised their own boycotts in 1938 and then after the shooting of vom Rath, destroyed nearly every Jewish institution in Germany and annexed Austria. But then it was not simply a defensive measure responding to foreign pressure.

@the Nazis periodically called for boycotts of Jewish businesses even before 1938

One may wonder why:
(From Wikipedia)

"The Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933 was a boycott of German products by foreign critics of the Nazi Party in response to antisemitism in Nazi Germany following the rise of Adolf Hitler, commencing with his appointment as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. Those in the United Kingdom, United States and other places worldwide who opposed Hitler's policies, developed the boycott and its accompanying protests to encourage Nazi Germany to end the regime's often-expressed anti-Jewish attitude.
Following Adolf Hitler's appointment as German Chancellor in January 1933, an organized campaign of violence and boycotting which was undertaken by Hitler's Nazi Party against the Jews of Germany, to which critics responded with worldwide calls for protest and boycotting. An editorial in The Harvard Crimson on October 24, 1933 stated: "The role of the neutral nation will be, as always, a difficult one. But those nations sincerely desirous of European peace still have an opportunity to preserve it. An economic boycott of Germany to force its government to terms would so multiply its target as to make a shot impractical"
The boycott began in March 1933 in both Europe and the US. It continued until the entry of the US into the war.
In a meeting held at the Hotel Knickerbocker on March 21 by the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, former congressman William W. Cohen advocated in support of a strict boycott of German goods, stating that "Any Jew buying one penny's worth of merchandise made in Germany is a traitor to his people." The Jewish War Veterans planned a protest march in Manhattan from Cooper Square to New York City Hall, in which 20,000 would participate, including Jewish veterans in uniform, with no banners or placards allowed other than American and Jewish flags.
A series of protest rallies were held on March 27, 1933, with the New York City rally held at Madison Square Garden with an overflow crowd of 55,000 inside and outside the arena and parallel events held in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia and 70 other locations, with the proceedings at the New York rally broadcast worldwide. Speakers at the Garden included American Federation of Labor president William Green, Senator Robert F. Wagner, former Governor of New York Al Smith and a number of Christian clergyman, joining together in a call for the end of the brutal treatment of German Jews. Rabbi Moses S. Margolies, spiritual leader of Manhattan's Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, rose from his sickbed to address the crowd, bringing the 20,000 inside to their feet with his prayers that the antisemitic persecution cease and that the hearts of Israel's enemies should be softened. Jewish organizations — including the American Jewish Congress, American League for Defense of Jewish Rights, B'nai B'rith, the Jewish Labor Committee and Jewish War Veterans — joined together in a call for a boycott of German goods.
Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise: "The time for prudence and caution is past. We must speak up like men. How can we ask our Christian friends to lift their voices in protest against the wrongs suffered by Jews if we keep silent? … What is happening in Germany today may happen tomorrow in any other land on earth unless its is challenged and rebuked. It is not the German Jews who are being attacked. It is the Jews."
The Nazis and some outside Germany portrayed the boycott as an act of aggression, with the British newspaper the Daily Express using the headline: "Judea Declares War on Germany" on March 24, 1933
Joseph Goebbels proclaiming that a series of "sharp countermeasures" would be taken against the Jews of Germany in response to the protests of American Jews. Goebbels announced a ONE-DAY boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany of his own to commence on April 1, 1933 that Aryan Germans would aim against Jewish-owned businesses, which would be lifted if anti-Nazi protests were suspended". They have not been.
The boycott (which lasted until the entrance of the United States into World War II) did nothing to stop the harassment of Jews in Germany".

And who was against the boycott? Yes, you guessed it:
"The Association of German National Jews, a marginal group that had supported Hitler in his early years, had fought against the Jewish boycott of German goods.
The Haavara Agreement*, together with lessened dependence on trade with the West, had by 1937 largely negated the effects of the Jewish boycott on Germany".

*"The agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the immigration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939.
The agreement was designed to enable Jews fleeing anti-Semitic persecution under the new Hitler regime to transfer some portion of their assets to their refuge in British Mandatory Palestine". Actually, the agreement continued during the War (the case of Hungarian Jews).

Nazis were threatening boycotts of Jewish businesses before coming to power, and after they did quite a few of them were frustrated that these did not go far enough and seemed more symbolic than anything else. Nazis also expressed hostility to department stores, some of which were Jewish-owned, but this also reflected a proclaimed Nazi preference for small businesses, often threatened by the existence of department stores. But again, this hostility was not taken very far, not least because closing them down, as with Jewish businesses, might have throw “Aryans” out of work.
If the boycotts directed at Germany were losing any effect by 1937, it seems strange that the Nazis radicalised their own boycotts in 1938 and then after the shooting of vom Rath, destroyed nearly every Jewish institution in Germany and annexed Austria. But then it was not simply a defensive measure responding to foreign pressure.

Annexation of Austria had nothing to do with 'destruction of nearly every Jewish institution in Germany' and with the assassination of Vom Rath because it happened way before (March 1938).There was no 'radicalization' of German boycotts in 1938 prior to the assassination of Vom Rath in November. If the boycotts had any deleterious effect, it was on the Jews. The events that provoked the assassination was the expulsion of Polish and stateless Jews from the Reich in October 1938 (the so-called 'Polenaktion' and 'Madagascar Plan'). Their internment in camps was an effect of the refusal of the Polish authorities to get them back!We know that people try with all sorts of twists and turns to get around the vexatious problem of the Haavara agreement and the collaboration of the Zionist Federation of Germany and the World Zionist Congress, even Haganah - World Zionist Congress was not the same with the World Jewish Congress which led the fight against Germany) with the Nazis in 'solving the Jewish problem'. It would shatter the myth of 'confiscation of Jewish assets' and cast serious doubts about the 'Holocaust'.

Nazis were threatening boycotts of Jewish businesses before coming to power, and after they did quite a few of them were frustrated that these did not go far enough and seemed more symbolic than anything else. Nazis also expressed hostility to department stores, some of which were Jewish-owned, but this also reflected a proclaimed Nazi preference for small businesses, often threatened by the existence of department stores. But again, this hostility was not taken very far, not least because closing them down, as with Jewish businesses, might have throw "Aryans" out of work.
If the boycotts directed at Germany were losing any effect by 1937, it seems strange that the Nazis radicalised their own boycotts in 1938 and then after the shooting of vom Rath, destroyed nearly every Jewish institution in Germany and annexed Austria. But then it was not simply a defensive measure responding to foreign pressure.

Annexation of Austria had nothing to do with ‘destruction of nearly every Jewish institution in Germany’ and with the assassination of Vom Rath because it happened way before (March 1938).
There was no ‘radicalization’ of German boycotts in 1938 prior to the assassination of Vom Rath in November. If the boycotts had any deleterious effect, it was on the Jews.
The events that provoked the assassination was the expulsion of Polish and stateless Jews from the Reich in October 1938 (the so-called ‘Polenaktion’ and ‘Madagascar Plan’). Their internment in camps was an effect of the refusal of the Polish authorities to get them back!
We know that people try with all sorts of twists and turns to get around the vexatious problem of the Haavara agreement and the collaboration of the Zionist Federation of Germany and the World Zionist Congress, even Haganah – World Zionist Congress was not the same with the World Jewish Congress which led the fight against Germany) with the Nazis in ‘solving the Jewish problem’. It would shatter the myth of ‘confiscation of Jewish assets’ and cast serious doubts about the ‘Holocaust’.

Well, Austria was under Nazi control by Kristallnacht so the destruction of synagogues in Germany took place there also. Yes or no? In fact Goebbels praised Viennese zeal for mob action, contrasting it with the passivity of Germans.
Poland had its own issues of anti-Semitism (including boycotting Jewish businesses) so Polish or stateless Jews were not allowed to cross. German anti-Semites were not the only ones with governmental power. Later as the Holocaust got under way, the Germans usually moved their Jews to the “East” (generally Poland) before killing them but by then Poland had been overrun and there was no Polish authority that could prevent it.
As to Zionists talking to Nazis, I am sure it happened.

The Jews deported to the East were mostly the Polish, Russian and stateless Jews interned in 1938, as well as the Polish Jews refugees in France, Austria, Romania. Many of them were Bolshevik agents under cover (like today's Islamic terrorists who hide among the "Syrian refugees').

"In January 1933, some 522,000 Jews by religious definition lived in Germany. Over half of these individuals, approximately 304,000 Jews, emigrated during the first six years of the Nazi dictatorship, leaving only approximately 214,000 Jews in Germany proper (1937 borders) on the eve of World War II...
"Public imagination associates the deportation of Jewish citizens with the “Final Solution,” but indeed the first deportations of Jews from the Reich—albeit Jews from areas recently annexed by Germany—began in October 1939 as part of the Nisko, or Lublin, Plan. This deportation strategy envisioned a Jewish “reservation” in the Lublin District of the Government General (that part of German-occupied Poland not directly annexed to the Reich). Adolf Eichmann, the German RSHA official who would later organize the deportation of so many of Europe's Jewish communities to ghettos and killing centers, coordinated the transfer of some 3,500 Jews from Moravia in the former Czechoslovakia, from Katowice (then Kattowitz) in German-annexed Silesia, and from the Austrian capital, Vienna, to Nisko on the San River. Although problems with the deportation effort and a change in German policy put an end to these deportations, Eichmann's superiors in the RSHA were sufficiently satisfied with his initiative to ensure that he would play a role in future deportation proceedings.
In addition, RSHA officials coordinated the deportation of approximately 100,000 Jews from German-annexed Polish territory (the so-called province of Danzig-West Prussia, District Wartheland, and East Upper Silesia) into the Government General in the autumn and winter of 1939–1940. In October 1940, Gauleiter Josef Bürckel ordered the expulsion of nearly 7,000 Jews from Baden and the Saarpfalz in southwestern Germany to areas of unoccupied France in a second deportation of German Jews. French authorities quickly absorbed most of these German Jews in the Gurs internment camp in the Pyrenees of southwestern France.
Upon Hitler's authorization, German authorities began systematic deportations of Jews from Germany in October 1941, even before the SS and police established killing centers (“extermination camps”) in German-controlled Poland. Pursuant to the Eleventh Decree of Germany's Reich Citizenship Law (November 1941), German Jews “deported to the East” suffered automatic confiscation of their property upon crossing the Reich frontier.
Between October and December 1941, German authorities deported around 42,000 Jews from the so-called Greater German Reich—including Austria and the annexed Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia—virtually all to ghettos in Lodz, Minsk, Kovno (Kaunas, Kovne), and Riga. German Jews sent to Lodz in 1941 and to Warsaw, the Izbica and Piaski transit ghettos and other locations in the Generalgouvernement in the first half of 1942 numbered among those deported together with Polish Jews to the killing centers of Chelmno (Kulmhof), Treblinka, and Belzec.
German authorities deported more than 50,000 Jews from the so-called Greater German Reich to ghettos in the Baltic states and Belorussia (today Belarus) between early November 1941 and late October 1942. There the SS and police shot the overwhelming majority of them. After selecting a small minority to survive temporarily for exploitation as forced laborers, the SS and police interned them in special German sections of the Baltic and Belorussian ghettos, segregated from those few local Jews whose survival the SS and police had permitted, generally to exploit special occupational skills."
@https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005469

Many of the camps were 'transition camps' on the route to Palestine, like the ones in Transnistria where Jewish refugees in Romania were returned.
We don't know exactly how many of the deportees joined the partisans and actively fought the Germans.
know also that about 2 million Jews from the Soviet occupied territories have been 'deported' to Siberia and Central Asia at the beginning of the invasion of USSR.
An interesting question is why the Germans evacuated the Auschwitz 60,000, plus 50,000 more inmates from the Stutthof camp system in northern Poland back to Germany. That included Elie Wiesel, the famous 'survivor'.

Well, Austria was under Nazi control by Kristallnacht so the destruction of synagogues in Germany took place there also. Yes or no? In fact Goebbels praised Viennese zeal for mob action, contrasting it with the passivity of Germans.
Poland had its own issues of anti-Semitism (including boycotting Jewish businesses) so Polish or stateless Jews were not allowed to cross. German anti-Semites were not the only ones with governmental power. Later as the Holocaust got under way, the Germans usually moved their Jews to the "East" (generally Poland) before killing them but by then Poland had been overrun and there was no Polish authority that could prevent it.
As to Zionists talking to Nazis, I am sure it happened.

The Jews deported to the East were mostly the Polish, Russian and stateless Jews interned in 1938, as well as the Polish Jews refugees in France, Austria, Romania. Many of them were Bolshevik agents under cover (like today’s Islamic terrorists who hide among the “Syrian refugees’).

“In January 1933, some 522,000 Jews by religious definition lived in Germany. Over half of these individuals, approximately 304,000 Jews, emigrated during the first six years of the Nazi dictatorship, leaving only approximately 214,000 Jews in Germany proper (1937 borders) on the eve of World War II…
“Public imagination associates the deportation of Jewish citizens with the “Final Solution,” but indeed the first deportations of Jews from the Reich—albeit Jews from areas recently annexed by Germany—began in October 1939 as part of the Nisko, or Lublin, Plan. This deportation strategy envisioned a Jewish “reservation” in the Lublin District of the Government General (that part of German-occupied Poland not directly annexed to the Reich). Adolf Eichmann, the German RSHA official who would later organize the deportation of so many of Europe’s Jewish communities to ghettos and killing centers, coordinated the transfer of some 3,500 Jews from Moravia in the former Czechoslovakia, from Katowice (then Kattowitz) in German-annexed Silesia, and from the Austrian capital, Vienna, to Nisko on the San River. Although problems with the deportation effort and a change in German policy put an end to these deportations, Eichmann’s superiors in the RSHA were sufficiently satisfied with his initiative to ensure that he would play a role in future deportation proceedings.
In addition, RSHA officials coordinated the deportation of approximately 100,000 Jews from German-annexed Polish territory (the so-called province of Danzig-West Prussia, District Wartheland, and East Upper Silesia) into the Government General in the autumn and winter of 1939–1940. In October 1940, Gauleiter Josef Bürckel ordered the expulsion of nearly 7,000 Jews from Baden and the Saarpfalz in southwestern Germany to areas of unoccupied France in a second deportation of German Jews. French authorities quickly absorbed most of these German Jews in the Gurs internment camp in the Pyrenees of southwestern France.
Upon Hitler’s authorization, German authorities began systematic deportations of Jews from Germany in October 1941, even before the SS and police established killing centers (“extermination camps”) in German-controlled Poland. Pursuant to the Eleventh Decree of Germany’s Reich Citizenship Law (November 1941), German Jews “deported to the East” suffered automatic confiscation of their property upon crossing the Reich frontier.
Between October and December 1941, German authorities deported around 42,000 Jews from the so-called Greater German Reich—including Austria and the annexed Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia—virtually all to ghettos in Lodz, Minsk, Kovno (Kaunas, Kovne), and Riga. German Jews sent to Lodz in 1941 and to Warsaw, the Izbica and Piaski transit ghettos and other locations in the Generalgouvernement in the first half of 1942 numbered among those deported together with Polish Jews to the killing centers of Chelmno (Kulmhof), Treblinka, and Belzec.
German authorities deported more than 50,000 Jews from the so-called Greater German Reich to ghettos in the Baltic states and Belorussia (today Belarus) between early November 1941 and late October 1942. There the SS and police shot the overwhelming majority of them. After selecting a small minority to survive temporarily for exploitation as forced laborers, the SS and police interned them in special German sections of the Baltic and Belorussian ghettos, segregated from those few local Jews whose survival the SS and police had permitted, generally to exploit special occupational skills.”
@https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005469

Many of the camps were ‘transition camps’ on the route to Palestine, like the ones in Transnistria where Jewish refugees in Romania were returned.
We don’t know exactly how many of the deportees joined the partisans and actively fought the Germans.
know also that about 2 million Jews from the Soviet occupied territories have been ‘deported’ to Siberia and Central Asia at the beginning of the invasion of USSR.
An interesting question is why the Germans evacuated the Auschwitz 60,000, plus 50,000 more inmates from the Stutthof camp system in northern Poland back to Germany. That included Elie Wiesel, the famous ‘survivor’.

Since there was a widespread tendency at the time to associate Jews with Communism (and this was a common theme in Nazi propaganda) the cover of the “Bolshevik agents under cover” cannot have been that good. Anyway, when Barbarossa started the Germans and their local collaborators typically placed an equal sign between “Bolshevik commissar” and “Jew”.
As to why the Germans evacuated camps like Auschwitz or Stutthof (By the way Vladek Spiegelman, father of the artist responsible for the Maus graphic novel, was one of those evacuated from Auschwitz to Gross-Rosen in Silesia) perhaps they had orders to remove anyone who was able-bodied back to Germany, and for the SS guarding prisoners may have been considered preferable to, and a way of avoiding being sent to fight. Certainly some Jewish survivors had the impression that the SS guarding them on the march considered it a way of avoiding being sent into the line to try and stop the onrushing Red Army with a couple of Panzerfausts.

@perhaps they had orders to remove anyone who was able-bodied back to Germany

Why ‘perhaps’? They definitely had orders. The question really is that the prisoners chose to go with their ‘murderers’. They didn’t seem to relish the chance to be ‘liberated’ by the Bolsheviks!

“Auschwitz-Birkenau, History of a man-made Hell,Liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, January 27, 1945″@http://www.scrapbookpages.com/AuschwitzScrapbook/History/Articles/Liberati:

“According to Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank, the prisoners were given a choice between staying in the camps until the Soviet troops arrived or going on a 50-kilometer fast hike through two feet of snow to the border of the old German Reich where they would be put on trains and taken to camps in Germany. This was a “death march” with those who couldn’t keep up being shot and left alongside the road, including SS guards, according to a survivor. Those who were too young, too old or too sick to march were left behind. The VIP prisoners, a group of famous scientists and intellectuals, were also left behind.
Elie Wiesel, the most famous survivor of the Holocaust, was in a hospital at Monowitz, recovering from an operation on his foot, when he chose to join the march out of the camp, and eventually ended up at the Buchenwald camp.
In his book entitled “Night,” Elie Wiesel wrote the following regarding his decision to join the Germans on the march out of Auschwitz:
The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him (his father) entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. “Well, what shall we do, father?” He was silent. “Let’s be evacuated with the others,” I told him.

“Around 60,000 prisoners chose to go with the Germans…
There were 4,428 women and girls and 169 boys who stayed behind. Around 2,000 prisoners were left behind in the men’s camp at Birkenau; there were around 1250 men in the main camp who did not join the march out of the camp and 850 who chose to stay behind at Monowitz.
When the soldiers of the Red Army of the Soviet Union arrived at Auschwitz on January 27, 1945, they were expecting to find more gas chambers; the gassing of the Jews had been common knowledge since June 1942 when the news was first broadcast over the radio by the BBC. What they found was the ruins of four large gas chambers where around one million Jews had been gassed. The Nazis had attempted to destroy the evidence of the genocide of the Jews, but had left behind at least 1,200 survivors at the Auschwitz main camp and 5,800 survivors at Birkenau, including 611 children, who were able to tell the liberators about the monstrous crimes that had been perpetrated at Auschwitz-Birkenau.”

So, only the 7,000 left behind were able to tell the Soviets about the gas chambers. The 60,000 who left with the Germans seemed unaware of it. Not that any of those 7,000 have been called as witnesses at Nurnberg.

If someone with a gun told me to go some place, and I suspected there were no restraints preventing them from just killing me on the spot, I would probably go. I don't think the SS offered multiple choice questions to concentration camp prisoners.
Mickey Mouse as a historical document? Hmm... You mean compared to "I Flew For The Fuehrer", "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" (coming to a Prague graveyard near you) or "Der Stuermer"? Or perhaps Kaltenbrunner at Nuremberg, constantly denying that the signature on execution orders was his?

@perhaps they had orders to remove anyone who was able-bodied back to Germany

Why 'perhaps'? They definitely had orders. The question really is that the prisoners chose to go with their 'murderers'. They didn't seem to relish the chance to be 'liberated' by the Bolsheviks!

"Auschwitz-Birkenau, History of a man-made Hell,Liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, January 27, 1945"@http://www.scrapbookpages.com/AuschwitzScrapbook/History/Articles/Liberati:

"According to Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank, the prisoners were given a choice between staying in the camps until the Soviet troops arrived or going on a 50-kilometer fast hike through two feet of snow to the border of the old German Reich where they would be put on trains and taken to camps in Germany. This was a "death march" with those who couldn't keep up being shot and left alongside the road, including SS guards, according to a survivor. Those who were too young, too old or too sick to march were left behind. The VIP prisoners, a group of famous scientists and intellectuals, were also left behind.
Elie Wiesel, the most famous survivor of the Holocaust, was in a hospital at Monowitz, recovering from an operation on his foot, when he chose to join the march out of the camp, and eventually ended up at the Buchenwald camp.
In his book entitled "Night," Elie Wiesel wrote the following regarding his decision to join the Germans on the march out of Auschwitz:
The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him (his father) entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. "Well, what shall we do, father?" He was silent. "Let's be evacuated with the others," I told him.

"Around 60,000 prisoners chose to go with the Germans...
There were 4,428 women and girls and 169 boys who stayed behind. Around 2,000 prisoners were left behind in the men's camp at Birkenau; there were around 1250 men in the main camp who did not join the march out of the camp and 850 who chose to stay behind at Monowitz.
When the soldiers of the Red Army of the Soviet Union arrived at Auschwitz on January 27, 1945, they were expecting to find more gas chambers; the gassing of the Jews had been common knowledge since June 1942 when the news was first broadcast over the radio by the BBC. What they found was the ruins of four large gas chambers where around one million Jews had been gassed. The Nazis had attempted to destroy the evidence of the genocide of the Jews, but had left behind at least 1,200 survivors at the Auschwitz main camp and 5,800 survivors at Birkenau, including 611 children, who were able to tell the liberators about the monstrous crimes that had been perpetrated at Auschwitz-Birkenau."

So, only the 7,000 left behind were able to tell the Soviets about the gas chambers. The 60,000 who left with the Germans seemed unaware of it. Not that any of those 7,000 have been called as witnesses at Nurnberg.

Do you really take 'Mickey Mouse' as a historical document?

If someone with a gun told me to go some place, and I suspected there were no restraints preventing them from just killing me on the spot, I would probably go. I don’t think the SS offered multiple choice questions to concentration camp prisoners.
Mickey Mouse as a historical document? Hmm… You mean compared to “I Flew For The Fuehrer”, “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” (coming to a Prague graveyard near you) or “Der Stuermer”? Or perhaps Kaltenbrunner at Nuremberg, constantly denying that the signature on execution orders was his?

But they were not told with the gun at the head.
If Elie Wiesel, the big liar said that:
“The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the hospital, where I could, thanks to my doctor, get him (his father) entered as a patient or nurse. Or else we could follow the others. “Well, what shall we do, father?” He was silent. “Let’s be evacuated with the others,” I told him”, then be sure that this is what happened.
They had the choice, however much you try to compare apples with oranges. But children love fairytales, especially Mickey Mouse. Don’t let truth stand in the way of a Mickey Mouse or Donald vs. Hitler cartoons or of the Hollywood ‘history’ of the War.

To be clear, the US did not “give” any of the Gulag ships to Stalin. The Soviet Union purchased from the US a number of surplus WWI-era ships and some of these went on to haul Gulag prisoners. Quite separately, the US did overhaul the Gulag fleet (for free) during WWII — but the US authorities didn’t know at the time about the role of these ships in the Gulag operation.

If you are going to get the book, get the USNI paperback edition. There were some big typesetting problems with the original hardback version from Praeger.

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter

The Novichok formula is available in science journals, Einstein. The goal of Novichok evidently was to to have an easily made nerve agent that did not require complex labs. Four EU countries are currently known to be experimenting with it right now- UK, Slovakia, Sweden and Czech Rep. Russia is n...

It's a reply for Vojkan comment
I think that though ordinary Russians have a hard time accepting it, as just any people in the world would have a hard time accepting it if they were the ones demonised,
Well, seeing such an injustice we feel being insulted and the hate and contempt probably are...

Yet in every criminal investigation, you look for motives in order to find suspects and for the suspicion to be plausible, the motive has to be compelling. When it comes to Russia though, anything goes, and no fact should be allowed that doesn't fit the narrative Russia = sheer evil. I think that...

Let's say that there are some useful formulas that fit our perception of reality and that have proven to work in many areas of technical engineering. That they don't encompass the whole of reality is obvious to anyone having a basic apprehension of physics.

You really think Russia is so stupid to use a nerve gas of which it is asserted that it is 60ties or 70ties Russian ?
The only explanation I can think of explaining this show is that Brussel asked GB to set it up, in return for some concesssion in the present GB EU Brexit negotiations.
As to th...

How can you say they were "murdered" when both are still alive, albeit in a critical state? Must you be wrong all the time?
This was obviously a very sloppy operation and the manner it has been seized upon, coupled with the lack of any substantive investigation as revealed by the police spoke...

There may be another angle to the Skripal case...
Former UK diplomat Craig Murray...he of the Assange / Podesta email non-hack saga...has some interesting info here...
'...There is no doubt that Skripal was feeding secrets to MI6 at the time that Christopher Steele was an MI6 officer in Moscow,...

We don’t know that. PR is one thing, what happens behind the curtain is completely different. You surely do not expect Mattis coming out to press shouting “I surrender.” Oh, I know well that Mattis is not necessarily stating what he really thinks. Rather, his message addresses both those f...

I would prefer a widespread mutiny from members across the armed services, a mass walkout of hundreds of thousands, whether by feigning illness or by moral objections to foreign policies. Even the sabotaging of military equipment to send a clear message that, "we'll defend the homeland but won't ...

So I am inclined to believe that it was English that did the deed
Makes sense.
I am not.
Everything in "spy game" is smoke and mirrors, so anyone can construct any story and believe anything.
I go for 70/30 Russians/Brits and Co.
Actually, don't care much about all that. One gets into that ga...

It is apparent that Russians did have a reason to kill that double agent to dissuade other Russian traitors.
But then English did have also a reason to kill the Russian spy. The Russian spy did spill all the beans to English. By that he also did gain valuable knowledge of English interrogation m...

And while all the fanboys are in trance about the SciFi vapoware, back on Earth it comes down to simple assassinations, Borgia style.
True, the poison was apparently high-tech, so, maybe that's the area where Russians spent the most of their time and resources in the arms race. In developing too...

The former has already been voiced by Mad Dog Mattis, whose strategic calculation (as if he has any idea) is apparently unchanged by these weapons.
We don't know that. PR is one thing, what happens behind the curtain is completely different. You surely do not expect Mattis coming out to press sh...

US-advised predatory corporate raiding of the 1990's gutted the manufacturing, financial and social infrastructure of the country. Repairing the massive large-scale economic and cultural arson is not corrected in a TV season but over several decades. Sorry to rain simple reality upon your phony w...

Worth repeating...
'...But I think we urgently need some small clash of Russia with USA just for everybody (even most silly US citizens) to understand where they are and who the[y] are until big one happened...'
Absolutely...sometimes strong delusions of grandeur can only be punctured by a ...

Well...that would go straight in the face of the prevalent mantra here and they simply can't have it.
"Putin speech changed the world" is the party line, apparently, around here. Facts don't matter, the party line is the fact. Nothing new there as far as Russians are concerned. They've mastere...

Probably, so what?
Putin was not the worst case for Russia and for the whole world.
But it was a just a lucky happening.
As for US we can see one clown replaces previous one and nothing gonna change. It doesn't depend on clown's background, they all were produced on the same factory. And this f...

Fair suck of the sauce bottle sport, Russia has had to deal with countless invasions over time from Turks, Swedes, Germans, French, British and more, some of them more than once, while the US has had an easy time by comparison.